RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Good point well made.

Well considering Jones said as such with regards to his selection to the final. He didn’t blame Ford, just said the selection and performance in the semi final had altered his mind.

And pack wise Mako isn’t fit so Marler starts anyway and other than that Ewels into the second row (where Lawes started) and Lawes to 6 Curry to 8. Its hardly like he’s added massive ballast to ensure that the previous scrum beasting doesn’t happen again. And to be fair a large amount came through the tighthead side where hopefully the only major difference is that Sinkler doesn’t go to head knock induced sleep after a couple of minutes.

Mako is 'rested' I'd read; and Lawes provides major ballast on the flank (where SA had a huge weight advantage both sides) where it counts for the props, plus lineout extras, plus a pseudo PSDT in the loose. I read it as a set piece beef up- plus be interesting to see what Lawes role in the loose is.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well yes. It was going to be suboptimal regardless with the loss of Billy. I'm happy with what he's selected. You're not. The middle bit is kind of moot as Willis isn't in the squad and neither are alternative scrum halves or Dombrandt, so in terms of team selection mean little in practice. EJ could have changed the midfield to something untested, or go with what he knows for the first game of the six nations away in Paris. I'm more than happy with the midfield that has worked well in the past. Furbank is a brave call, especially as his high ball hasn't shown to be a major upgrade from Daly. Think I'd have gone with Thorley and retained Daly. but fair fucks to him. Daly should be fine on the right wing.

And yes hate is maybe a strong word, but this board does read like Daily Mail comments whenever the name Farrell is mentioned. Though it is kind of amusing to see adults vent spleens just because some frankly moronic journalist wrote some bollocks about him in a newspaper somewhere. You can almost feel the anger in the key presses.

I’m struggling with the concept that you ask me for alternatives but reject them because Eddie didn’t put them in the initial squad. You are then saying he’s made the best of the selection options he gave himself, and there we disagree. On Faz- meh, he's just a player with some good and some ordinary skills who works hard, over-rated generally, think you are slightly overreacting the other way.

Btw on the midfield indeed he could have risked untested as he has in the back row and back three!

I’m struggling with the fact that you don’t seem to be able to grasp the restrictions of the squad, judge me on the restrictions of said squad, and base your opinions on a squad that hasn’t been selected, but hey ho.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well considering Jones said as such with regards to his selection to the final. He didn’t blame Ford, just said the selection and performance in the semi final had altered his mind.

And pack wise Mako isn’t fit so Marler starts anyway and other than that Ewels into the second row (where Lawes started) and Lawes to 6 Curry to 8. Its hardly like he’s added massive ballast to ensure that the previous scrum beasting doesn’t happen again. And to be fair a large amount came through the tighthead side where hopefully the only major difference is that Sinkler doesn’t go to head knock induced sleep after a couple of minutes.

Mako is 'rested' I'd read; and Lawes provides major ballast on the flank (where SA had a huge weight advantage both sides) where it counts for the props, plus lineout extras, plus a pseudo PSDT in the loose. I read it as a set piece beef up- plus be interesting to see what Lawes role in the loose is.

Yeah course it does! It’s nothing to do with balancing the lack of Billy with a bigger 6. The blasting of the scrum was predominantly on the tighthead side so a slightly larger blindside and smaller 8 does what exactly?

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: I’m struggling with the concept that you ask me for alternatives but reject them because Eddie didn’t put them in the initial squad. You are then saying he’s made the best of the selection options he gave himself, and there we disagree. On Faz- meh, he's just a player with some good and some ordinary skills who works hard, over-rated generally, think you are slightly overreacting the other way.

Btw on the midfield indeed he could have risked untested as he has in the back row and back three!

I’m struggling with the fact that you don’t seem to be able to grasp the restrictions of the squad, judge me on the restrictions of said squad, and base your opinions on a squad that hasn’t been selected, but hey ho.

I'm just struggling now....you asked me who I'd have selected and I told you- You then said well they aren't in the squad so its moot. I said consistently that view and your expectation and hence 'happiness' was based on the 'restrictions' of Eddies squad (even if I disagree- if that's 'judging' then gee whizz). The restrictions of the squad are those placed by Eddie,

Kinda circular. Lets start again- would you have picked a different initial squad?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
I’m struggling with the fact that you don’t seem to be able to grasp the restrictions of the squad, judge me on the restrictions of said squad, and base your opinions on a squad that hasn’t been selected, but hey ho.

I'm just struggling now....you asked me who I'd have selected and I told you- You then said well they aren't in the squad so its moot. I said consistently that view and your expectation and hence 'happiness' was based on the 'restrictions' of Eddies squad (even if I disagree- if that's 'judging' then gee whizz). The restrictions of the squad are those placed by Eddie,

Kinda circular. Lets start again- would you have picked a different initial squad?

What struggling from picking from those actually available in the squad? It’s hardly difficult mate. There’s a squad and you pick for it.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm just struggling now....you asked me who I'd have selected and I told you- You then said well they aren't in the squad so its moot. I said consistently that view and your expectation and hence 'happiness' was based on the 'restrictions' of Eddies squad (even if I disagree- if that's 'judging' then gee whizz). The restrictions of the squad are those placed by Eddie,

Kinda circular. Lets start again- would you have picked a different initial squad?

What struggling from picking from those actually available in the squad? It’s hardly difficult mate. There’s a squad and you pick for it.

Struggling that you seem to be deliberately missing my point.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
What struggling from picking from those actually available in the squad? It’s hardly difficult mate. There’s a squad and you pick for it.

Struggling that you seem to be deliberately missing my point.

That you’ll judge me on the actual squad and then pick from players not included in said squad?

Digby wrote:It annoys me I'm more intrigued to see how France gel, and I'm not as excited about France as I was before Dupont had to withdraw from the game

Mr Mwenda wrote:
I'm intrigued to see how this team gels. C'mon england!

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It annoys me I'm more intrigued to see how France gel, and I'm not as excited about France as I was before Dupont had to withdraw from the game

Wait, Dupont is missing too? That's a big blow after Penaud. Who starts at 9, then?

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It annoys me I'm more intrigued to see how France gel, and I'm not as excited about France as I was before Dupont had to withdraw from the game

Wait, Dupont is missing too? That's a big blow after Penaud. Who starts at 9, then?

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It annoys me I'm more intrigued to see how France gel, and I'm not as excited about France as I was before Dupont had to withdraw from the game

Wait, Dupont is missing too? That's a big blow after Penaud. Who starts at 9, then?

Always possible it's only Penaud who's missing. A near empty bottle of Cointreau suggests my memory of last night (and reading a story on the phone pretending to listen to people at the dining table) might not be all it could

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Wait, Dupont is missing too? That's a big blow after Penaud. Who starts at 9, then?

Always possible it's only Penaud who's missing. A near empty bottle of Cointreau suggests my memory of last night (and reading a story on the phone pretending to listen to people at the dining table) might not be all it could

Yep, complete brain fail on my part. I even had in mind it was the winger missing and still came up with the wrong name this morning. I'll put some coffee on

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:
Always possible it's only Penaud who's missing. A near empty bottle of Cointreau suggests my memory of last night (and reading a story on the phone pretending to listen to people at the dining table) might not be all it could

Yep, complete brain fail on my part. I even had in mind it was the winger missing and still came up with the wrong name this morning. I'll put some coffee on

I'd suggest the brain fail was pre-Cointreau