RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Banquo and I have been sniping at each other on here for 15 years (or, according to him, probably, he's been attempting to educate me). He's a cracking guy and I'm delighted he enjoyed the book. However, IF Jones rated Borthwick as a player (as Banquo reported), there is absolutely no hope. Borthwick was a skilled lineout operator and a useless international second row in all other aspects. Jones is a conman, IMO. We'd have been better to reappoint SCW, not that I'm seriously advocating that.

Yeah the Borthwick a a player bit surprised me too- I think he was referring to him as a club player, his intellectual approach, attention to detail and homework he did on the opposition even as a player. He was a very average international, but outstanding at club level (there's a pattern here )-- I think Jones might have poached him from Bath back to Sarries, which caused a storm at the time.

One could say Tom Curry is a carrier in the Borthwick mould ... meow

what, Tom the leading carrier in both packs in the Calcutta Cup Curry? Pretty meaningless comparison tbh.

jngf wrote:

Freddo wrote:That team is pretty shocking. Is there no back rowers who are also line out optons if that's the reason Lawes is in? Shame about Furbank but Thorley should be there imo.

Ludlum’s done nothing to deserve being dropped - imo he’s been a better and more convincing 6 than Curry (let alone Lawes)and whilst he’s not got the line out jumping proess of a lock that Lawes obviously has, in every other facet of back row play he’s the better choice to start at 6.
Lawes can do a good job as a back row finisher with his hard carrying put he lacks the mobility/pace over the park, engine, work rate and fetching skills to start at 6.

Ludlam is definitely a better bet at 6 than Lawes. He's very raw compared to Curry though.

I read that Danny Cipriani had made an emotional Instagram video and was trying to buy a gun, and assumed he must have seen Eddies team too....

Seriously, I can get behind Joseph on the wing tbh. We do have an injury crisis in the back 3 and he’s a very experienced and intelligent player. Can see why a coach might have a hunch for him doing a good job in a big game there.

Pretty happy with everything else, BUT Lawes at 6 on a dry day makes bugger all sense to me. It’s like without Billy- and Wilson- he just thinks there are too many deficiencies throughout the pack, and that the 3 second rows are somehow a compromise.

Joseph on the wing, sure, a nice bit of hand holding for Manu in the 13 channel too. Daly at fullback, alright, lets him bring his counter attacking game in easier than from wing in my mind.

However, we're only getting turnovers from the lineouts with that squad. If we choke Ireland of possession by dominating the lineout, fine, if not, they'll take us to the cleaners in the breakdown unless the weather saves us again.

Raggs wrote:Joseph on the wing, sure, a nice bit of hand holding for Manu in the 13 channel too. Daly at fullback, alright, lets him bring his counter attacking game in easier than from wing in my mind.

However, we're only getting turnovers from the lineouts with that squad. If we choke Ireland of possession by dominating the lineout, fine, if not, they'll take us to the cleaners in the breakdown unless the weather saves us again.

I was going down that line when trying to rationalise JJ's selection, and especially given the way Ireland took Wales to the cleaners in the 13 channel early on; but he's only able to contribute in defence on one side of the field (and in fact the opposite side to where Ireland were going wide, unsurprisingly on their left); to offset that is that its been years since he started on the wing (and all those who think ah well, he can play 13, so wing is easy- just no), that he is playing against the best box kicking side in the world, and not least that he isn't as quick as he was. Daly brings good running lines at 15, and an out for the 9 from turnover ball, but is dreadful under the high ball, and that combo with JJ as novice intl wing is scary. Incidentally, I think a winger has more licence to roam and intervene in the line than a 15, but that's by the by. So, on balance, it looks a very high risk selection (JJ, he had little choice w Daly) especially against this Ireland team.

The back row selection and 5 locks just lacks credibility, esp when it knocks on to a 6;2 bench, when 2 of the backs in the squad are barely fit.

jngf wrote:[
Ludlum’s done nothing to deserve being dropped - imo he’s been a better and more convincing 6 than Curry (let alone Lawes)and whilst he’s not got the line out jumping proess of a lock that Lawes obviously has, in every other facet of back row play he’s the better choice to start at 6.
Lawes can do a good job as a back row finisher with his hard carrying put he lacks the mobility/pace over the park, engine, work rate and fetching skills to start at 6.

Isn't Ludlam being reported as injured? (rather than writing another Bourne book)

p/d wrote:

jngf wrote:[
Ludlum’s done nothing to deserve being dropped - imo he’s been a better and more convincing 6 than Curry (let alone Lawes)and whilst he’s not got the line out jumping proess of a lock that Lawes obviously has, in every other facet of back row play he’s the better choice to start at 6.
Lawes can do a good job as a back row finisher with his hard carrying put he lacks the mobility/pace over the park, engine, work rate and fetching skills to start at 6.

Isn't Ludlam being reported as injured? (rather than writing another Bourne book)

Straight on to the Saints bench after being released by England. I think.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Joseph on the wing, sure, a nice bit of hand holding for Manu in the 13 channel too. Daly at fullback, alright, lets him bring his counter attacking game in easier than from wing in my mind.

However, we're only getting turnovers from the lineouts with that squad. If we choke Ireland of possession by dominating the lineout, fine, if not, they'll take us to the cleaners in the breakdown unless the weather saves us again.

I was going down that line when trying to rationalise JJ's selection, and especially given the way Ireland took Wales to the cleaners in the 13 channel early on; but he's only able to contribute in defence on one side of the field (and in fact the opposite side to where Ireland were going wide, unsurprisingly on their left); to offset that is that its been years since he started on the wing (and all those who think ah well, he can play 13, so wing is easy- just no), that he is playing against the best box kicking side in the world, and not least that he isn't as quick as he was. Daly brings good running lines at 15, and an out for the 9 from turnover ball, but is dreadful under the high ball, and that combo with JJ as novice intl wing is scary. Incidentally, I think a winger has more licence to roam and intervene in the line than a 15, but that's by the by. So, on balance, it looks a very high risk selection (JJ, he had little choice w Daly) especially against this Ireland team.

The back row selection and 5 locks just lacks credibility, esp when it knocks on to a 6;2 bench, when 2 of the backs in the squad are barely fit.

Joseph not as quick? That seems a random assertion. I don’t think anyone thinks it’ll be easy for him, but as a last minute inclusion necessitated by injury, I can see why a coach might trust someone like Joseph to do a job for one game.

The positives that Daly brings at fullback are, imo, woefully underplayed and under-rated. His contributions to our attack, from the SA tour onwards through the 2019 6N’s and then the World Cup were massive.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Joseph on the wing, sure, a nice bit of hand holding for Manu in the 13 channel too. Daly at fullback, alright, lets him bring his counter attacking game in easier than from wing in my mind.

However, we're only getting turnovers from the lineouts with that squad. If we choke Ireland of possession by dominating the lineout, fine, if not, they'll take us to the cleaners in the breakdown unless the weather saves us again.

I was going down that line when trying to rationalise JJ's selection, and especially given the way Ireland took Wales to the cleaners in the 13 channel early on; but he's only able to contribute in defence on one side of the field (and in fact the opposite side to where Ireland were going wide, unsurprisingly on their left); to offset that is that its been years since he started on the wing (and all those who think ah well, he can play 13, so wing is easy- just no), that he is playing against the best box kicking side in the world, and not least that he isn't as quick as he was. Daly brings good running lines at 15, and an out for the 9 from turnover ball, but is dreadful under the high ball, and that combo with JJ as novice intl wing is scary. Incidentally, I think a winger has more licence to roam and intervene in the line than a 15, but that's by the by. So, on balance, it looks a very high risk selection (JJ, he had little choice w Daly) especially against this Ireland team.

The back row selection and 5 locks just lacks credibility, esp when it knocks on to a 6;2 bench, when 2 of the backs in the squad are barely fit.

Joseph not as quick? That seems a random assertion. I don’t think anyone thinks it’ll be easy for him, but as a last minute inclusion necessitated by injury, I can see why a coach might trust someone like Joseph to do a job for one game.

The positives that Daly brings at fullback are, imo, woefully underplayed and under-rated. His contributions to our attack, from the SA tour onwards through the 2019 6N’s and then the World Cup were massive.

I do agree with Dors that since his injury he looks a little slower, esp after 20 metres, maybe still catching up on fitness; I say that having seen him hauled down in club rugby by players he'd normally not be caught by. I disagree with your opinion on him playing, as you disagree with mine.

I've highlighted the positive on Daly many times, and also said it was Eddie's only real option at the mo. He still remains poor without the ball.

Oakboy wrote:

jngf wrote:Moving to some of selections themselves, can someone tell me why Ewels is back in 23?

If we’re going to pick a Bath impact lock why not go for Stooke or even Garvey at least they bring something a bit different to the mix. I’m sure Ewels is a nice guy but I see too much of an unholy trinity of Borthwick, Louis Deacon and a Kruis Tribute band in his play for comfort

Banquo and I have been sniping at each other on here for 15 years (or, according to him, probably, he's been attempting to educate me). He's a cracking guy and I'm delighted he enjoyed the book. However, IF Jones rated Borthwick as a player (as Banquo reported), there is absolutely no hope. Borthwick was a skilled lineout operator and a useless international second row in all other aspects. Jones is a conman, IMO. We'd have been better to reappoint SCW, not that I'm seriously advocating that.

Borthwick offered a decent amount at test level beyond the lineout. What he didn't offer was carrying, and yet we had him as a principal carrier. His workmate and ruck work were decent, his tackling wasn't dominant hits but he was getting the job done. He'd have looked much better if we'd never passed to him on attack.

Banquo; you’d have played Thorley on the left wing then?

Yeah must say nothing about Joseph’s selection is a negative against Joseph. He is simply a fantastic defender and organised in the midfield and to pick him in that position, and nullify that part of his game to a degree, seems ridiculous.

Timbo wrote:Banquo; you’d have played Thorley on the left wing then?

Why not? Otherwise what is the point having him in the squad. I’m all for supporting Jones’ every decision, but surely that can look as foolhardy as Dors knocking his continuation as head coach.

Willis making a mockery of him not being in the squad, let alone the team (though saying that he's come off early in the 2nd half).

The only point of the game is to stop Ireland getting a GS, other than that, the tournament is shot for England so what better time to blood some young’ uns?

Preferably at 9 so BS doesn’t insult the rugby world by getting a ton.

Timbo wrote:Banquo; you’d have played Thorley on the left wing then?

yep- and JJ at 13

He played the Wing Commander for two games so why not Thorley?

I R Geech wrote:The only point of the game is to stop Ireland getting a GS, other than that, the tournament is shot for England so what better time to blood some young’ uns?

Preferably at 9 so BS doesn’t insult the rugby world by getting a ton.

How is the tournament shot for England? We've lost one game!

Puja

Puja wrote:

I R Geech wrote:The only point of the game is to stop Ireland getting a GS, other than that, the tournament is shot for England so what better time to blood some young’ uns?

Preferably at 9 so BS doesn’t insult the rugby world by getting a ton.

How is the tournament shot for England? We've lost one game!

Puja

Well with this team, we’re just about to lose another!

Well statistically we do lose with Lawes at 6 more often than not, but does that hold at home?

Puja wrote:

I R Geech wrote:The only point of the game is to stop Ireland getting a GS, other than that, the tournament is shot for England so what better time to blood some young’ uns?

Preferably at 9 so BS doesn’t insult the rugby world by getting a ton.

How is the tournament shot for England? We've lost one game!

Puja

They’ve been dreadful and buggered by injuries, so if they want to get something positive out of this, they won’t do it by patching up the cracks with known quantities.

Digby wrote:Well statistically we do lose with Lawes at 6 more often than not, but does that hold at home?

We’ll find out tomorrow. But I’m far from confident with that team.

I'm not confident, but by no stretch is it all over.

But then, this thread is so chocked full of hyperbole because of one new decision. It's notmlike Lawes at 6, Curry at 8 or Daly at 15 are even surprises, let alone left-field decisions; and from history, only Lawes at 6 could be said to have ever cost us a game.

FTR, I'm no fan of any of the above, or of JJ at wing; and certainly not defending them.

Puja wrote:

I R Geech wrote:The only point of the game is to stop Ireland getting a GS, other than that, the tournament is shot for England so what better time to blood some young’ uns?

Preferably at 9 so BS doesn’t insult the rugby world by getting a ton.

How is the tournament shot for England? We've lost one game!

Puja

I sort of agree with Geech. The first game was massive in my opinion. First game after WC defeat against a country that that, no fault of our own, we avoided playing on the pool stages. A win away in Paris should have been the only game that mattered in the build up to 6n.

Which Tyler wrote:I'm not confident, but by no stretch is it all over.

But then, this thread is so chocked full of hyperbole because of one new decision. It's notmlike Lawes at 6, Curry at 8 or Daly at 15 are even surprises, let alone left-field decisions; and from history, only Lawes at 6 could be said to have ever cost us a game.

FTR, I'm no fan of any of the above, or of JJ at wing; and certainly not defending them.

or 5 locks, a 6:2 bench, especially given two half fit backs? When you add all that up, its slightly bonkers, and just puts petrol on the anti-Eddie squad's bonfire.