RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:I think the biggest question is, "Why were we not more up for it?"

Ford kicked badly from hand last week. It was reasonable to expect improvement but he was even worse today.

Coka was a passenger but involved last week.

LCD was poor last week and worse today.

The maul was even worse this week.

What did the coaches do for 6 days?

“Why were we not more up for it?”- that’s what these games are for, no? If you could just click your fingers and hit the right amount of physical and emotional intensity then you wouldn’t bother with warm up matches.

Case in point, why were Wales blown off the field last week? Both teams probably also doing plenty of conditioning at the moment, could be we were a bit fatigued going in.

Could also be that the Wales first choice team (especially pack) with a bit of a point to prove is simply a bit better than our 2nd/3rd choice pack.

Buggaluggs wrote:

twitchy wrote:I was going to watch the highlights but probably won't bother. Any new injuries?

go on. It won't take long.

Biggar not getting a red card is clearly worth the MoM, and probably the most interesting thing in a dire match. Wales looked a little more sorted in the backs last week, this week both sides were rank bad

I’m now watching Argentina who would have beaten us today as well.

Backrow - not close to being right
Ford - awful kicking from hand
Heinz - looked off the boil
Youngs - looked even worse
Maul - Shoddy

Just not good enough. Tactically or executionally

Timbo wrote:
“Why were we not more up for it?”- that’s what these games are for, no? If you could just click your fingers and hit the right amount of physical and emotional intensity then you wouldn’t bother with warm up matches.

Case in point, why were Wales blown off the field last week? Both teams probably also doing plenty of conditioning at the moment, could be we were a bit fatigued going in.

Could also be that the Wales first choice team (especially pack) with a bit of a point to prove is simply a bit better than our 2nd/3rd choice pack.

Yeah, it definately felt like 'one of those days' - inability to understand the ref, lookibg fatigued, balls bouncing nicely into welsh hands. If they find a way to eliminate this then it'll be ok. Not too optimistic, mind.

On the upside, Piers carries off a scrum cap with a sense of elegance and a confident swagger

fivepointer wrote:

Timbo wrote:Just as last week I would be reticent to make too many judgements on that 80 minutes, positive or negative. It was a step up physically, and I think that took us by surprise a bit in the first half. That was their first choice packs second hit out so you’d expect them to be a handful.

It’s a lesson we’ve learned often, but clear we need at least 2 of our 4 flankers to be fit and on the park together for every game or we will have some serious struggles. Outgunned at the breakdown today.

Right not to get too down as it is "just a warm up" but jeez we were bloody poor. For a lot of our players it was their second hit out too. I think its reasonable to expect a whole lot better.

The breakdown was a reversion to where we were a year and a half ago. Our ball retention has been pretty good for a while but so much of our clear out work today was poor and/or under resourced. Its not just down to the back row to get this aspect of play right.

Only Billy from our starting pack was having a second hit out.

Bottom line, if we are putting that pack out for a World Cup knock out (with an undercooked Itoje to boot), none of u are going to be too confident. Thankfully that would require an avalanche of injuries, so let’s hope we don’t have that sort of bad luck.

Only Billy you say.... erm

p/d wrote:Only Billy you say.... erm

I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:Only Billy you say.... erm

I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:Only Billy you say.... erm

I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

Ah, gotcha.

jngf wrote:

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:Only Billy you say.... erm

I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Timbo wrote:
I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

Ludlam has done well. Over 2 games he's shown he can step up. Big tick in the plus column.

May have missed this earlier in the chat but what on earth was the thinking behind Singleton being back row sub when Kvesic had been training all week? He really could have staked a claim if he had a good half and could have been a like-for-like if underhill or curry get injured in the world cup.

padprop wrote:May have missed this earlier in the chat but what on earth was the thinking behind Singleton being back row sub when Kvesic had been training all week? He really could have staked a claim if he had a good half and could have been a like-for-like if underhill or curry get injured in the world cup.

Beats me. The experiment was given 4 minutes at the end of the game in which Singleton managed to make no tackles and failed to handle the ball. Can't blame him for that. It was a pointless selection and an even more pointless late substitution.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

The difference is about experience and nous - Ludlam's very promising and has shown in these two tests that he's a good international option (and certainly better than playing f*cking Lawes in the back row ever again), but he's still, completely understandably, making the mistakes of someone with only one season of top-flight rugby and 2 caps behind him. For example, Davies would not have scored the try last week down Wilson's flank.

In addition, Wilson has a far better capacity to put himself in the right place more often to make a bigger impact. Ludlam might be quicker and a bigger tackler, but Wilson has more significant interventions in a game just because he's been round the block a lot and uses his top 2 inches to offset Ludlam's physical advantages.

Puja

We were absolutely brutal. To watch

Whether that was what Jones was after only he knows

Thought George was good when he came on. Until he passed to Youngs

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

The difference is about experience and nous - Ludlam's very promising and has shown in these two tests that he's a good international option (and certainly better than playing f*cking Lawes in the back row ever again), but he's still, completely understandably, making the mistakes of someone with only one season of top-flight rugby and 2 caps behind him. For example, Davies would not have scored the try last week down Wilson's flank.

In addition, Wilson has a far better capacity to put himself in the right place more often to make a bigger impact. Ludlam might be quicker and a bigger tackler, but Wilson has more significant interventions in a game just because he's been round the block a lot and uses his top 2 inches to offset Ludlam's physical advantages.

Puja

100% agreed. Ludlam’s been good and OK in his two performances to date. Wilson has been good, if not very good in all of his. You can keep on with your John The Baptist routine jngf.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

The difference is about experience and nous - Ludlam's very promising and has shown in these two tests that he's a good international option (and certainly better than playing f*cking Lawes in the back row ever again), but he's still, completely understandably, making the mistakes of someone with only one season of top-flight rugby and 2 caps behind him. For example, Davies would not have scored the try last week down Wilson's flank.

In addition, Wilson has a far better capacity to put himself in the right place more often to make a bigger impact. Ludlam might be quicker and a bigger tackler, but Wilson has more significant interventions in a game just because he's been round the block a lot and uses his top 2 inches to offset Ludlam's physical advantages.

Puja

I would go with Wilson, as he brings the things you mention plus leadership.

I’m pretty sanguine about it either way though. We desperately need 2 proper flankers on the field at all times. The 4 Jones has picked can all do the job, and we are a different team when we get two of them together. Lawes at 6 on a rainy day at Twickenham I can just about live with, but that’s about it.

jngf wrote:

Timbo wrote:

p/d wrote:Only Billy you say.... erm

I can see how I wasn’t clear; starting = first choice.

In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

Really? He was pretty anonymous for long periods today. It has to be tempered with his experience, but he’s absolutely 4th choice flanker.

He was our openside today and we got totally fucked at the breakdown several times. It may not be his job alone, but a major part of his job.

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

The difference is about experience and nous - Ludlam's very promising and has shown in these two tests that he's a good international option (and certainly better than playing f*cking Lawes in the back row ever again), but he's still, completely understandably, making the mistakes of someone with only one season of top-flight rugby and 2 caps behind him. For example, Davies would not have scored the try last week down Wilson's flank.

In addition, Wilson has a far better capacity to put himself in the right place more often to make a bigger impact. Ludlam might be quicker and a bigger tackler, but Wilson has more significant interventions in a game just because he's been round the block a lot and uses his top 2 inches to offset Ludlam's physical advantages.

Puja

I would go with Wilson, as he brings the things you mention plus leadership.

I’m pretty sanguine about it either way though. We desperately need 2 proper flankers on the field at all times. The 4 Jones has picked can all do the job, and we are a different team when we get two of them together. Lawes at 6 on a rainy day at Twickenham I can just about live with, but that’s about it.

Yep. Interesting that Marler made reference to this in the BBC Rugby podcast too. He basically said that he’d notably gone from being a quiet observer to an obvious leader.

Timbo wrote:

Danno wrote:Can we put this Lawtoje shit to bed once and for all now, please?

Very much hope so, but we’ll probably see it again if we lose 3 flankers in a week again.

Fair point, but it does beg the question of what Eddie would do, should this happen in a world cup, if this was indeed a simulation. He could have used Kvesic, for example, today. Would he swap an injured squad member out to avoid Lawtoje?

Timbo wrote:Just as last week I would be reticent to make too many judgements on that 80 minutes, positive or negative. It was a step up physically, and I think that took us by surprise a bit in the first half. That was their first choice packs second hit out so you’d expect them to be a handful.

It’s a lesson we’ve learned often, but clear we need at least 2 of our 4 flankers to be fit and on the park together for every game or we will have some serious struggles. Outgunned at the breakdown today.

and the penalties, and the continuing to kick when it was costing us....

these issues are prevalent whatever the personnel and whatever the context. Its a worry, for me.

Give it up. Simon Shaw isn’t a type that exists anymore.