RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

Move Farrell to 12...

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

Move Farrell to 12...

lol

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

If we hadn't brought on Ford already, then grudgingly go to Ford, Faz, Slade, while cursing our luck. If we had already brought on Ford, then we'd have to bodge (as we did when losing Itoje after taking Kruis off). Probably Daly to centre and Nowell to 15.

Mind, with the Farrell-love of the management, if we've taken Farrell off then we're probably 20 points up and cruising, so it won't be a pressurised sub anyway.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

That's the point, though, Banquo. If Tuilagi was injured after 20 minutes Farrell would have to move to IC. I started this by just saying that I'd like to see Ford come on at FH at some point with Farrell leaving the field. After 60 - 70 minutes, with the game won, I'd be happy to see Tuilagi leave for a rest as well if necessary but I'd really want him on for at least part of the time that Ford replaced Farrell, my only point being that we need to get real evidence about whether Ford can run things as well (or even better) than Farrell (with Jones's current 1st choice centre pairing of Tuilagi/Slade). Let's face it, if he can't, why have him on the bench? Why not have Jones's preferred second choice IC, T'eo? If Farrell is more or less injury-proof and IF he is the ultimate FH and IF he is always going to do 80 minutes, Ford adds nothing because his arrival forces Farrell to IC. At a push, Slade can fill in as an emergency FH.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

If we hadn't brought on Ford already, then grudgingly go to Ford, Faz, Slade, while cursing our luck. If we had already brought on Ford, then we'd have to bodge (as we did when losing Itoje after taking Kruis off). Probably Daly to centre and Nowell to 15.

Mind, with the Farrell-love of the management, if we've taken Farrell off then we're probably 20 points up and cruising, so it won't be a pressurised sub anyway.

Puja

Fine, making three changes to accommodate one sub is always nuts, and you are right, you can't mitigate some sequences of injuries,

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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

Mostly because he needs some protection against fatigue based injury.

We aren't at cross purposes though- if Manu was forced off with 20 mins to go, what would you do?

That's the point, though, Banquo. If Tuilagi was injured after 20 minutes Farrell would have to move to IC. I started this by just saying that I'd like to see Ford come on at FH at some point with Farrell leaving the field. After 60 - 70 minutes, with the game won, I'd be happy to see Tuilagi leave for a rest as well if necessary but I'd really want him on for at least part of the time that Ford replaced Farrell, my only point being that we need to get real evidence about whether Ford can run things as well (or even better) than Farrell (with Jones's current 1st choice centre pairing of Tuilagi/Slade). Let's face it, if he can't, why have him on the bench? Why not have Jones's preferred second choice IC, T'eo? If Farrell is more or less injury-proof and IF he is the ultimate FH and IF he is always going to do 80 minutes, Ford adds nothing because his arrival forces Farrell to IC. At a push, Slade can fill in as an emergency FH.

Mate, that all looks a bit rhetorical! All I was questioning was the relative nutsness of three positional changes to accommodate a single change in personnel, and in that two or even three players unfamiliar with the position you stick them in internationally. You and Puja have kinda clarified. Ish.
There's a paradox in what you are saying in any case- you want to know if Ford can run a game that's already won, and with a side thats likely dotted with subs.
I'm more interested in Ford starting with Tuilagi, JJ, plus Daly May and Watson .....with Robson inside and a decent back row.

(and you always need two specialist 10's in the squad, say Faz breaks a shoulder in the 1st minute, its not that unlikely )

Banquo wrote: Mate, that all looks a bit rhetorical! All I was questioning was the relative nutsness of three positional changes to accommodate a single change in personnel, and in that two or even three players unfamiliar with the position you stick them in internationally. You and Puja have kinda clarified. Ish.
There's a paradox in what you are saying in any case- you want to know if Ford can run a game that's already won, and with a side thats likely dotted with subs.
I'm more interested in Ford starting with Tuilagi, JJ, plus Daly May and Watson .....with Robson inside and a decent back row.

(and you always need two specialist 10's in the squad, say Faz breaks a shoulder in the 1st minute, its not that unlikely )

I accept all that. It's you and others that keep advocating Ford as better than Farrell. The snag is that Jones disagrees. That's fine.

IMO, the worst part of Jones's preference is that we only ever see Farrell at 10 with our first (or, now, even second) choice centre pairing. If Ford gets on it seems only to be with Farrell at 12 (now, apparently, the third choice IC).

Consequently, if, as you say, there HAS to be a FH on the bench why not leave him there unless Farrell is injured? I see no point in bringing Ford on at all.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Mate, that all looks a bit rhetorical! All I was questioning was the relative nutsness of three positional changes to accommodate a single change in personnel, and in that two or even three players unfamiliar with the position you stick them in internationally. You and Puja have kinda clarified. Ish.
There's a paradox in what you are saying in any case- you want to know if Ford can run a game that's already won, and with a side thats likely dotted with subs.
I'm more interested in Ford starting with Tuilagi, JJ, plus Daly May and Watson .....with Robson inside and a decent back row.

(and you always need two specialist 10's in the squad, say Faz breaks a shoulder in the 1st minute, its not that unlikely )

I accept all that. It's you and others that keep advocating Ford as better than Farrell. The snag is that Jones disagrees. That's fine.

IMO, the worst part of Jones's preference is that we only ever see Farrell at 10 with our first (or, now, even second) choice centre pairing. If Ford gets on it seems only to be with Farrell at 12 (now, apparently, the third choice IC).

Consequently, if, as you say, there HAS to be a FH on the bench why not leave him there unless Farrell is injured? I see no point in bringing Ford on at all.

Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja

Banquo wrote:[
I'm more interested in Ford starting with Tuilagi, JJ, plus Daly May and Watson .....with Robson inside and a decent back row.

Stop it. You know full well that there is a no porn rule on this website.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Mate, that all looks a bit rhetorical! All I was questioning was the relative nutsness of three positional changes to accommodate a single change in personnel, and in that two or even three players unfamiliar with the position you stick them in internationally. You and Puja have kinda clarified. Ish.
There's a paradox in what you are saying in any case- you want to know if Ford can run a game that's already won, and with a side thats likely dotted with subs.
I'm more interested in Ford starting with Tuilagi, JJ, plus Daly May and Watson .....with Robson inside and a decent back row.

(and you always need two specialist 10's in the squad, say Faz breaks a shoulder in the 1st minute, its not that unlikely )

I accept all that. It's you and others that keep advocating Ford as better than Farrell. The snag is that Jones disagrees. That's fine.

IMO, the worst part of Jones's preference is that we only ever see Farrell at 10 with our first (or, now, even second) choice centre pairing. If Ford gets on it seems only to be with Farrell at 12 (now, apparently, the third choice IC).

Consequently, if, as you say, there HAS to be a FH on the bench why not leave him there unless Farrell is injured? I see no point in bringing Ford on at all.

Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja

I feel another break from the board is in order!

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I accept all that. It's you and others that keep advocating Ford as better than Farrell. The snag is that Jones disagrees. That's fine.

IMO, the worst part of Jones's preference is that we only ever see Farrell at 10 with our first (or, now, even second) choice centre pairing. If Ford gets on it seems only to be with Farrell at 12 (now, apparently, the third choice IC).

Consequently, if, as you say, there HAS to be a FH on the bench why not leave him there unless Farrell is injured? I see no point in bringing Ford on at all.

Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja

I feel another break from the board is in order!

Don't be like that. You've spent years educating this dozy old yokel. You can't give up now.

Puja wrote:
Consequently, if, as you say, there HAS to be a FH on the bench why not leave him there unless Farrell is injured? I see no point in bringing Ford on at all.

Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja[/quote]

So Cipriani didn't manage it in SA?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja

I feel another break from the board is in order!

Don't be like that. You've spent years educating this dozy old yokel. You can't give up now.

It does feel a bit like groundhog day, and I mean that in a nice way; its all because none of us think Eddie has it right....and part of it is what he has available, part of it..is..well...Farrell being the immovable object. That said, I was thinking that he has actually become competent, and being skipper may be having a positive effect finally, and Puja's minute by minute thing actually stopped me thinking he could have done a lot better (though Youngs deffo could)......I know diggers is now a massive fan too....so maybe, just maybe......





















nah, still an oikish thug with poor defence, no running game, no pass left to right, sub intl standard place kicker who is our third best 10....at best

Just give in. He is inevitable for the foreseeable future. Just concentrate your mind powers on getting the ewok to elect on form and with some consistency of said form. Except golden boy, of course.

I think Ashton is a very good player, of a similar calibre to Nowell, and it may be that they’ve just spotted something in analysis that they reckon Ashton’s style will exploit better than Nowell’s.

Also think they probably think France will be less organised defensively, particularly late on when they fatigue, and that Nowell coming on and buzzing around the rucks might open up some holes.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:Well the last point is obvious - if Farrell breaks himself first game of the RWC, we'll need a fly-half who can step straight in, and hasn't been out of international rugby for a year.

Puja

So Cipriani didn't manage it in SA?

Not really. You going to tell me that turgid backs performance was symbolic of him slotting in with nary a disruption?

Puja

France lock Lambey - just read in the Guardian that he is 6'3" and 15 st. If so - that is hyper small for a modern day second row. Even if he is tough, mobile and fast, you have to wonder how he will stand up to England in the set piece. Looked quite impressive from the bench against a disorganized Italy last week, but the big England pack is another kettle of poissons.

If dear Owen was to disappear and either Ford or Cipriani was to start, the other one replacing the starter at 60 minutes or so would make good sense to me. Similarly, I could live with Tuilagi/Slade starting with T'eo/Joseph in reserve but not in the 23 (or whoever was in best form etc.). That would mean a wing/part-time centre or a FB on the bench - all well and good.

I just can't stand dear Owen being first choice AND moving to IC when Ford comes on. It's going to stifle the continuity/balance of the back line by definition and, IMHO, it's Jones's worst hang-up, worse even than picking Farrell in the first place. It's as if it's a scheme to prove that Farrell is better than Ford by handicapping Ford each time he comes on.

And, my wish to see Robson get game time might come back to haunt me because, no doubt, it will be the dreaded Ford/Farrell combo outside the poor sod. I would just love to see Robson/Ford on in place of Youngs/Farrell and if I had the chance, I'd do it at HT whatever the state of the game - shit or bust, so to speak.

Ford off the bench united with Farrell at 12 has often looked good imo.

True, but could another combo look better?

Mellsblue wrote:True, but could another combo look better?

Shit, why couldn't I put it that simply?

Spiffy wrote:France lock Lambey - just read in the Guardian that he is 6'3" and 15 st. If so - that is hyper small for a modern day second row. Even if he is tough, mobile and fast, you have to wonder how he will stand up to England in the set piece. Looked quite impressive from the bench against a disorganized Italy last week, but the big England pack is another kettle of poissons.

He's definitely bigger than that. Probably the same size as maro/kruis.

twitchy wrote:

Spiffy wrote:France lock Lambey - just read in the Guardian that he is 6'3" and 15 st. If so - that is hyper small for a modern day second row. Even if he is tough, mobile and fast, you have to wonder how he will stand up to England in the set piece. Looked quite impressive from the bench against a disorganized Italy last week, but the big England pack is another kettle of poissons.

He's definitely bigger than that. Probably the same size as maro/kruis.

I saw that too. Does sound very small. Was impressed by him last week though and was Wales rather than italy he was up against.

Cameo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Spiffy wrote:France lock Lambey - just read in the Guardian that he is 6'3" and 15 st. If so - that is hyper small for a modern day second row. Even if he is tough, mobile and fast, you have to wonder how he will stand up to England in the set piece. Looked quite impressive from the bench against a disorganized Italy last week, but the big England pack is another kettle of poissons.

He's definitely bigger than that. Probably the same size as maro/kruis.

I saw that too. Does sound very small. Was impressed by him last week though and was Wales rather than italy he was up against.

Yeah, the Guardian probably misread it...

6'5" says everywhere else, but still light at 16st something.

Banquo wrote:I know diggers is now a massive fan too....so maybe, just maybe......

I'd agree on wanting to start Robson, Ford, May, Tuilagi, JJ, Watson and Daly. The thing I'd wonder more about given that lineup isn't Youngs and Farrell, it's how do I get Cockanasiga into the side