RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

You forgot about scampering Jack.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

You forgot about scampering Jack.

Replacement backrow.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote: I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

You forgot about scampering Jack.

Replacement backrow.

Where’s Morgan going then?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
You forgot about scampering Jack.

Replacement backrow.

Where’s Morgan going then?

IC if Tuilagi is injured.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

You forgot about scampering Jack.

I certainly didn't. There again, I also didn't name a bench.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Looks like I’m going to have to be very patient. Though, tbh, the last 15 have tested my patience quite enough.

I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I’m also saying that we have quite a lot of really good players. And that posted team is very similar to the one we have been playing btw.

And i’m also saying that we will, unequivocally, be going to the 2019 World Cup with the best team and squad of players we’ve had for 16 years, so y’know, it ain’t all “doom and gloom” And for all his faults, there’s reason to believe Eddie Jones might be able to manage a World Cup significantly better than all of our post ‘03 head coaches.

As for us becoming this pre-eminent rugby force of nature, well we were shite for a decade. Like, our elite top players weren’t even fit enough to aspire to be the best for a long time. Those basic things have been addressed now, and our player development is miles better than it was. Where that takes us and how far we go in the next few years I have no idea.

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I’m also saying that we have quite a lot of really good players. And that posted team is very similar to the one we have been playing btw.

And i’m also saying that we will, unequivocally, be going to the 2019 World Cup with the best team and squad of players we’ve had for 16 years, so y’know, it ain’t all “doom and gloom” And for all his faults, there’s reason to believe Eddie Jones might be able to manage a World Cup significantly better than all of our post ‘03 head coaches.

As for us becoming this pre-eminent rugby force of nature, well we were shite for a decade. Like, our elite top players weren’t even fit enough to aspire to be the best for a long time. Those basic things have been addressed now, and our player development is miles better than it was. Where that takes us and how far we go in the next few years I have no idea.

Pretty crucial differences in the backs, which make it totally dissimilar in my mind.

Given Ashton somehow got us to the final in 2007, you are thus predicting a win

Are you saying player development in age group rugby is miles ahead of where we were, or in GP land?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

A team of 15 top players will beat a team with 8 "best in the world" and 7 mediocre players, in my mind.

And I think there's good cause to say that 5 of that team would be in the world 23, and another 5 among the top players in their positions.

Plus we have depth most countries would give their right arm for. I mean, if NZ lost their top 2 LHPs, would they be able to field Moon and Genge, with Hepburn on standby? How many teams would be picking Ewels, Isiekwe, hell even Stooke or Hill as 2nd choice lock, and these players can't get close to our bench outside a major injury crisis.

But we've not built any depth, either in personnel or, more importantly, in systems.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I could see a team of Mako, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis/Lawes/Joe L, Wilson, Curry, Billy V, Robson, Ford, Daly/Joe, Manu, JJ, May, Watson/Daly as being one other sides would be worried about. But it won't happen, and I don't think Eddie would be looking to use the potential of the backs anyway.

I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

Other than NZ, and even then I’d argue our front 5, no 8 and back 3 (assuming a fit Watson) are their equal or superior, I’d have our squad over anyone else’s.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

Other than NZ, and even then I’d argue our front 5, no 8 and back 3 (assuming a fit Watson) are their equal or superior, I’d have our squad over anyone else’s.

'other than NZ' being the key phrase!

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I could, too. That’s kinda my point to Timbo. We have the pipeline and the current players of sufficient quality - u20 record and number of Lions test players - but yet we’re still inconsistent, fourth in the world and being told we have to wait another 8/9/10 years.

I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

A team of 15 top players will beat a team with 8 "best in the world" and 7 mediocre players, in my mind.

And I think there's good cause to say that 5 of that team would be in the world 23, and another 5 among the top players in their positions.

Plus we have depth most countries would give their right arm for. I mean, if NZ lost their top 2 LHPs, would they be able to field Moon and Genge, with Hepburn on standby? How many teams would be picking Ewels, Isiekwe, hell even Stooke or Hill as 2nd choice lock, and these players can't get close to our bench outside a major injury crisis.

But we've not built any depth, either in personnel or, more importantly, in systems.

Well that team composition is your own straw man; I'd be looking for 8/9 best in the world, plus 7/6 very good ones. Which 5 are you putting forward, not that it really matters in the context of what I think you need to be 'guaranteed competitive'.
Its funny how the collective have gone from being a bit down to being bullish so quickly

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

Other than NZ, and even then I’d argue our front 5, no 8 and back 3 (assuming a fit Watson) are their equal or superior, I’d have our squad over anyone else’s.

'other than NZ' being the key phrase!

So second best squad and we shouldn’t be considered ‘a favourite’?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

A team of 15 top players will beat a team with 8 "best in the world" and 7 mediocre players, in my mind.

And I think there's good cause to say that 5 of that team would be in the world 23, and another 5 among the top players in their positions.

Plus we have depth most countries would give their right arm for. I mean, if NZ lost their top 2 LHPs, would they be able to field Moon and Genge, with Hepburn on standby? How many teams would be picking Ewels, Isiekwe, hell even Stooke or Hill as 2nd choice lock, and these players can't get close to our bench outside a major injury crisis.

But we've not built any depth, either in personnel or, more importantly, in systems.

Well that team composition is your own straw man; I'd be looking for 8/9 best in the world, plus 7/6 very good ones. Which 5 are you putting forward, not that it really matters in the context of what I think you need to be 'guaranteed competitive'.
Its funny how the collective have gone from being a bit down to being bullish so quickly

Not sure anyone was down on our strength of squad, more that we play one dimensional, boring and losing rugby and that some players are untouchable for no good, on pitch reason.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I don't completely agree that 'we have the players' to be considered a favourite- even amongst the mob I've named, not many would be in a best in the world 23, and that is a good benchmark for winning a world cup.......but it is a good squad to work with; we are inconsistent because of average coaching, and because our skills and decision making under pressure aren't good/consistent enough.

A team of 15 top players will beat a team with 8 "best in the world" and 7 mediocre players, in my mind.

And I think there's good cause to say that 5 of that team would be in the world 23, and another 5 among the top players in their positions.

Plus we have depth most countries would give their right arm for. I mean, if NZ lost their top 2 LHPs, would they be able to field Moon and Genge, with Hepburn on standby? How many teams would be picking Ewels, Isiekwe, hell even Stooke or Hill as 2nd choice lock, and these players can't get close to our bench outside a major injury crisis.

But we've not built any depth, either in personnel or, more importantly, in systems.

Well that team composition is your own straw man; I'd be looking for 8/9 best in the world, plus 7/6 very good ones. Which 5 are you putting foward?

So you'd expect us to have more "Best in the world" than everyone else combined?

Yeah, I'd settle for 5/6.

Mako is surely the best LHP in the world, I don't think you can have any debate.
George
Itoje is right up there with the contenders.
Billy is another, Read is looking less and less effective, imo.
May is in scintillating form, and has been for a while.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Other than NZ, and even then I’d argue our front 5, no 8 and back 3 (assuming a fit Watson) are their equal or superior, I’d have our squad over anyone else’s.

'other than NZ' being the key phrase!

So second best squad and we shouldn’t be considered ‘a favourite’?

You are claiming its the second best squad, not me.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: 'other than NZ' being the key phrase!

So second best squad and we shouldn’t be considered ‘a favourite’?

You are claiming its the second best squad, not me.

You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
A team of 15 top players will beat a team with 8 "best in the world" and 7 mediocre players, in my mind.

And I think there's good cause to say that 5 of that team would be in the world 23, and another 5 among the top players in their positions.

Plus we have depth most countries would give their right arm for. I mean, if NZ lost their top 2 LHPs, would they be able to field Moon and Genge, with Hepburn on standby? How many teams would be picking Ewels, Isiekwe, hell even Stooke or Hill as 2nd choice lock, and these players can't get close to our bench outside a major injury crisis.

But we've not built any depth, either in personnel or, more importantly, in systems.

Well that team composition is your own straw man; I'd be looking for 8/9 best in the world, plus 7/6 very good ones. Which 5 are you putting foward?

So you'd expect us to have more "Best in the world" than everyone else combined?

Yeah, I'd settle for 5/6.

Mako is surely the best LHP in the world, I don't think you can have any debate.
George
Itoje is right up there with the contenders.
Billy is another, Read is looking less and less effective, imo.
May is in scintillating form, and has been for a while.

I'm not saying I'd expect, that's just the benchmark that coaches like SCW and Dwyer have laid down to have aspirations to win a world cup.
All of your choices are good internationals, and up for debate- even Mako has been questioned this season on his scrummaging.

I'm a bit weary of making the case that whilst we do have some very good players, we should still aspire to get more, and improve the ones we have. We consistently over-rate our players imo.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So second best squad and we shouldn’t be considered ‘a favourite’?

You are claiming its the second best squad, not me.

You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:
You are claiming its the second best squad, not me.

You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

I just see Wales outperforming us with, well, Tomos Francis, Corey Hill, Ross Moriaty, Josh Navidi, Gareth Anscombe, Hadlee Parkes, Josh Amos... and think: really?

I mean, none of them are bad players, but they're not what you would call top class, are they...

I just feel like we consistently perform to a lower quality than the sum of our parts.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

I just see Wales outperforming us with, well, Tomos Francis, Corey Hill, Ross Moriaty, Josh Navidi, Gareth Anscombe, Hadlee Parkes, Josh Amos... and think: really?

I mean, none of them are bad players, but they're not what you would call top class, are they...

I just feel like we consistently perform to a lower quality than the sum of our parts.

I totally agree, and have said so for years and on this thread. But its also possible at the same time to believe that we need to improve on the parts too.

And for all the list of not great performers you have listed, a fair few made key contributions, in Hill and Adams case match winning ones through pretty top interventions- Hill hit a tremendous line, and Adams try was of high skill. I think Navidi is a pretty good player tbh.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:
You are claiming its the second best squad, not me.

You didn’t disagree with ‘other than NZ’ so I assumed you agree. Who do have the second best squad?

Because NZ clearly have the best squad; I think Ireland have a very good squad as it happens.

I'm assuming therefore you are blaming Jones for not being second best in the world, as opposed to 4th.

This is a weird turn of the thread from where you were previously , though in fairness it was a general frustration, which I share. But for me, there remains a problem with player quality

So you think we have the third best squad? I’d take our squad over Ire but it’s close. We’re also discussing the last 10 years and the next 10 years. Everything at our disposal means that we should consistently be at the sharp end whilst smaller nations fluctuate around us.
When fit, I think we have a squad that should mean we consistently beat all, other than NZ, and one that should have us consistently in the top two in the world.
What shouldn’t happen is the clueless last 30 against Wales, 2018 6N etc. I do blame Jones. As a selector I think he’s poor and I’m sick of this sticking to traditional English strengths, ie 10 man rugby. In Ford, Slade, Joseph, Tuilagi, May, Watson and Daly we have some absolute quality in the backs to play with width. To be clear, I’m not happy with where the team is. I just think that with everything at the RFU’s disposal - money, player numbers, age group pathway and current playing squad - we should consistently be top two with no4 being a blip rather than return to the mean. That’s not say we don’t need upgrades in places, but who doesn’t.

I’m coming round more and more to the idea that so many teams are lacking in serious skills and the only thing that matters is players being fired up and throwing themselves into contact.

Ireland can do it pretty consistently so have done well. Wales can certainly muster it, especially if they hate a team as much as England. Even Scotland can build themselves up occasionally and put in a serious performance against NZ/England, Aus after getting screwed out of the World Cup. Only NZ have the actual skills to get around this if they’re not winning the collisions.

I think about watching Munster the week after Foley died and I genuinely think they would have beaten any team in the world.