RugbyRebels

ExAviator wrote:I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

fivepointer wrote:I dont get it.
If we were bringing in a superior player, then fair enough. But no one is saying that - cos it aint so - so we're dropping a player who performed well for us last time out for someone who isnt better, who isnt as versatile and who isnt an established team member.

Oakboy wrote:Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

Mellsblue wrote:That looks like a centre partnership where not one player has proved he can play test rugby in that position. Heck, Slade and Nowell haven’t even proved they can play Prem rugby in those positions.

ExAviator wrote:I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

francoisfou wrote:

ExAviator wrote:I'm not surprised at Ashton's selection for the specific match v France. What does surprise me is that nobody has commented on his bringing to the English team the valuable experience he gained over the recent past playing with and against those selected for the French team.

Sorry, but that doesn't count for much with me. It's like saying drop Wilson for Shields when we play NZ.
Nowell is a more than competent player - more so than Ashton in my opinion, and he had an excellent game against the Irish ( and to my knowledge, he's not played for any teams over there !!)

morepork wrote:I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm loving the way England consistently ignores the fastest and most dangerous outside backs in their domestic comp on the basis of assumed defensive frailties and then recalls Chris "I think I'll just let that one bounce out rather than compete for it" Ashton.

Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

So? Point still stands.

fivepointer wrote:Horses for courses would have seen Brown at FB in Ireland, surely?

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:
Didn't he score against your lot?

Puja

So? Point still stands.

Not sure it does. He's scored at more than a try a game for the past two seasons. Who're we ignoring that's more dangerous than him?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is it a coincidence that Nowell is out now Lawes is in? Maybe, Jones sees Lawes's destructive element in the loose as sufficient and can add an extra attacking element with Ashton's try-sniffing. Also, it may be another element in the attacking development that he referred to before the Irish game. Then, the talk was about only having had time to fully prepare defence. One can only speculate. I am interested to know that Mitchell does not see Ashton as a defensive risk.

Launchbury in the 23 and Shields not in it are good.

Now, I want lots of game time for Robson and Launchbury. I don't want Farrell at IC at all. If Ford comes on let it be to replace Farrell . . . .

Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Not sure I want Manu playing 80 mins, tbh

Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Playing where?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Nowell on in that scenario? I don't particularly want Ford, Faz, Slade unless absolutely necessary - that's a toothless combo. All pass, no run.

Puja

Playing where?

?? Do you mean Nowell? If so, OC or FB, presumably.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Depending on the state of the game, why not Slade at IC and Nowell or Daly at OC?

That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

So.....you'd put Slade at 12 where he hasn't played much, if at all internationally, and Nowell at 13 (ditto). Or Daly at 13, ditto, with Nowell at 15 (ditto). Either way making three changes. Ballsy.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote: That's what I was suggesting - that you can have both Ford replacing Faz and Manu not playing 80.

Puja

So.....you'd put Slade at 12 where he hasn't played much, if at all internationally, and Nowell at 13 (ditto). Or Daly at 13, ditto, with Nowell at 15 (ditto). Either way making three changes. Ballsy.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. The original thing was someone saying they wanted Ford to replace Faz, not one of the centres and somebody else saying that they didn't want Manu to play 80. All this assumes that we're in a comfortable enough position where we can make subs to rest players, rather than requiring "finishers".

I was pointing out that replacing Faz with Ford doesn't preclude then taking Manu off for the last 10 if we're comfortable, not an expression of desire for a Slade/Nowell centre partnership as a first resort.

And it's ironic that I've got caught up in defending this, as I'm not even sure why one wouldn't want Manu to play 80 in the first place!

Puja