RugbyRebels

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:09 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:35 pm
fivepointer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:21 pm SB got it wrong with T Curry. There's a case to be made that neither Curry should have gone, we play Earl as a 7 and bring in T Hill and T Willis. Think that would have given us a better balance.
The SH selection should have included JvP.
Other than that, I think the squad was the right one and we should be pleased to have done some things very well.
Really frustrating that we fell off in the last quarter in both games and that the bench impact was almost entirely negative.
Spot on. I think the SH debate is interesting. A few years back the majority opinion on here was anti-Mitchell. He went from nowhere to RWC replacement and now he is arguably up there with Itoje as our most important player. SB has to put work into the back-up options. JvP and Quirke need to hit the ground running for their clubs in the new season.

This.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:15 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:51 am
Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:49 am Yep. No impact across either test apart from giving away a sloppy penalty last week.

Should have been left at home. To be fair, I don’t think anyone here was advocating him being picked.
Negative impact bench bar Sleightholme and possibly Cole.

Baxter and Sleightholme big bonuses on tour.

A couple ‘finds’ each window and we’ll be golden.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:21 pm**

Up until the last two games, Earl has shown up very well at 8 and CCS and Underhill compliment each other quite well IMO. While I accept that the NZ back row outplayed ours at the breakdown, I don’t see a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I’d need some convincing on Earl as a 7. IMO, Underhill has done a lot to cement his place and nothing to warrant being dropped. Earl’s strength is his carrying. I’m less convinced by him in the main aspects I want to see in a 7. His tackling and breakdown work in particular would be a huge step down from Underhill’s.

Leave him at 8 or put him in the 20 shirt. If he does play 7, I don’t think CCS is the right 6 to pair him with. Then you’d probably need a fit Tom Curry at 6.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:23 pm**

CCS with Cunderhill perhaps.

Well done Daniel Richard Cole:

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:01 pm**

I can imagine him being a pikeman with both haircuts.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:10 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:15 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:51 am
Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:49 am Yep. No impact across either test apart from giving away a sloppy penalty last week.

Should have been left at home. To be fair, I don’t think anyone here was advocating him being picked.
Negative impact bench bar Sleightholme and possibly Cole.

Baxter and Sleightholme big bonuses on tour.
A couple ‘finds’ each window and we’ll be golden.

I think the only "finds" we need are props and centres TBH, then some depth around the wider squad.
Props don't really come through as "finds" in the same way that backs and even backrowers can.

Get Langdon some international experience, and 2&16 are fine.
Itoje, Martin and Chessum has the 2nd row sorted for the 23
Backrow is an embarrassment of riches in all 3 positions, but seems to be difficult finding a combination that just clicks, and gets the most out of the desired game-plan.
Mitchell, JvP is fine, Quirke has potential if he can earn the starting shirt at Sale, he'll be ready for England.
Ford, Smith & Smith is as good a stable of FHs as anyone in the world.
IFW, Freeman and Sleightholme is up there with SA and France on the wing.
Furbank needs a backup who doesn't change the gameplan - I expect Bath to provide an option this season whichever of TdG and Harris win that battle, Mallins may play himself into another last-chance as well.

We have no centres for either shirt who are of the desired standard, and no props (either side) who don't come with significant question marks.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:19 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:10 pm
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:15 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:51 am

Negative impact bench bar Sleightholme and possibly Cole.

Baxter and Sleightholme big bonuses on tour.
A couple ‘finds’ each window and we’ll be golden.
I think the only "finds" we need are props and centres TBH, then some depth around the wider squad.
Props don't really come through as "finds" in the same way that backs and even backrowers can.

Get Langdon some international experience, and 2&16 are fine.
Itoje, Martin and Chessum has the 2nd row sorted for the 23
Backrow is an embarrassment of riches in all 3 positions, but seems to be difficult finding a combination that just clicks, and gets the most out of the desired game-plan.
Mitchell, JvP is fine, Quirke has potential if he can earn the starting shirt at Sale, he'll be ready for England.
Ford, Smith & Smith is as good a stable of FHs as anyone in the world.
IFW, Freeman and Sleightholme is up there with SA and France on the wing.
Furbank needs a backup who doesn't change the gameplan - I expect Bath to provide an option this season whichever of TdG and Harris win that battle, Mallins may play himself into another last-chance as well.

We have no centres for either shirt who are of the desired standard, and no props (either side) who don't come with significant question marks.

Never be afraid to draft over someone, as the Americans would say.
Until we have 30 world class players spread evenly across the squad then I’ll take a ‘find’ in any position, even if we need it in more positions than others.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:26 pm**

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:21 pm Up until the last two games, Earl has shown up very well at 8 and CCS and Underhill compliment each other quite well IMO. While I accept that the NZ back row outplayed ours at the breakdown, I don’t see a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I’d need some convincing on Earl as a 7. IMO, Underhill has done a lot to cement his place and nothing to warrant being dropped. Earl’s strength is his carrying. I’m less convinced by him in the main aspects I want to see in a 7. His tackling and breakdown work in particular would be a huge step down from Underhill’s.

Leave him at 8 or put him in the 20 shirt. If he does play 7, I don’t think CCS is the right 6 to pair him with. Then you’d probably need a fit Tom Curry at 6.

Fair comment. It works both ways with Earl. He either demands the shirt or he gives way. I do wonder if Underhill is quite what he is cracked up to be once the showreel tackling highlights are over. Did he do that well at the breakdown today? I'd switch to Jack Willis in a heartbeat if he was available. I think Earl and Underhill deserved their starts on this tour but would it be that big a surprise if missing a game or two through injury cost them their places in the longer term?

I think CCS is there to stay.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:42 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:19 pmNever be afraid to draft over someone, as the Americans would say.

I don't know what that means.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:19 pmUntil we have 30 world class players spread evenly across the squad then I’ll take a ‘find’ in any position, even if we need it in more positions than others.

I'm not saying I wouldn't take a "find", but that we don't NEED them in most positions.
It surely goes without saying that anyone who looks to be better than any incumbent should at the very least get a shot in a training camp.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:44 pm**

Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:35 pm
fivepointer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:21 pm SB got it wrong with T Curry. There's a case to be made that neither Curry should have gone, we play Earl as a 7 and bring in T Hill and T Willis. Think that would have given us a better balance.
The SH selection should have included JvP.
Other than that, I think the squad was the right one and we should be pleased to have done some things very well.
Really frustrating that we fell off in the last quarter in both games and that the bench impact was almost entirely negative.
Spot on. I think the SH debate is interesting. A few years back the majority opinion on here was anti-Mitchell. He went from nowhere to RWC replacement and now he is arguably up there with Itoje as our most important player. SB has to put work into the back-up options. JvP and Quirke need to hit the ground running for their clubs in the new season.

Mitchell only made the RWC because of injury to JvP. To be fair to him he worked so hard on the weaker areas of his game they became strengths. JvP actually finished the season well for Tigers. Opting to give him the summer off so that he could come back strong for next season was a good call and the same option we should have gone with for TCurry. We could have taken Alfie Barbeary instead and had a physical player on both sides of the ball that carries well and likes to compete at the breakdown.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:49 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:58 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:56 am
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:21 am

Usually the answer to that question is yes but this time I don’t think so.
T Cuzza should’ve been left at home to holiday and rehab.
Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.
Coles v CCS shouldn’t even be a comparison tbh, very different players.

A CCS and Earl combo with an 8 tbc would be worth a look. Earl was a curates egg in NZ I thought.

I thought CCS was cream crackered when he came off today. Last week he seemed to come off early but this week he'd emptied the tank and we needed another option. Coles seems to be the default option as we need both lock and 6 cover and as Coles has experience at both in he goes. It's been disappointing he couldn't stake a claim for the 19 shirt going forwards.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:51 pm**

Game was there for the taking. Yet again we lacked any ability to change it up and go for it.

Baxter was our star man, alongside Itoje

Their bench ultimately did for us whilst ours came onto the pitch to watch.

Marcus cross field kicks were tops but, jeez, he is experienced enough now to stop trying to create magic each time he gets the ball. Bloody frustrating player.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:01 pm**

p/d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:51 pm Marcus cross field kicks were tops but, jeez, he is experienced enough now to stop trying to create magic each time he gets the ball. Bloody frustrating player.

In fairness, if he didn't create magic, it wasn't gonna come from Lawrence or Slade.

Puja

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:26 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:42 pm
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:19 pmNever be afraid to draft over someone, as the Americans would say.
I don't know what that means.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:19 pmUntil we have 30 world class players spread evenly across the squad then I’ll take a ‘find’ in any position, even if we need it in more positions than others.
I'm not saying I wouldn't take a "find", but that we don't NEED them in most positions.
It surely goes without saying that anyone who looks to be better than any incumbent should at the very least get a shot in a training camp.

Don’t be afraid to draft someone from college who plays in the same position of a good player you already have if you think they can be better.

We have just spent nearly five years watching dross and seem to be happy losing a two test series, albeit closely, to a team that haven’t played in months and months under a brand new head coach whose had his hands on them for two (I think) weeks I think we need reinforcements in all positions.
That said, I think we’re agreeing. We def need some finds in weak positions but if we find the next Dan Carter to replace the Smiths (I look forward to the posts working in their lyrics) and Ford then I’d be just as happy, if not more so, than if we found a good test IC. I’m desperately hoping Will Joseph is the next ‘find’.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:28 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:01 pm
p/d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:51 pm Marcus cross field kicks were tops but, jeez, he is experienced enough now to stop trying to create magic each time he gets the ball. Bloody frustrating player.
In fairness, if he didn't create magic, it wasn't gonna come from Lawrence or Slade.

Puja

You don't necessarily need magic. Trust in the process and look to move the opposition defence around, look for weaknesses and then pry them open.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:37 pm**

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:49 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:58 am
Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:56 am

Agreed. I think Coles for CCS at 6 is a massive drop in standard. Having both Earl and Underhill in the back row remains debatable. I still believe that Roots as a physical impact replacement should have been ahead of Curry (in current condition). Picking Dombrandt and both Currys for the tour was a mistake.

I'd not be surprised if quite a few squad members miss out on the AIs.
Coles v CCS shouldn’t even be a comparison tbh, very different players.

A CCS and Earl combo with an 8 tbc would be worth a look. Earl was a curates egg in NZ I thought.
I thought CCS was cream crackered when he came off today. Last week he seemed to come off early but this week he'd emptied the tank and we needed another option. Coles seems to be the default option as we need both lock and 6 cover and as Coles has experience at both in he goes. It's been disappointing he couldn't stake a claim for the 19 shirt going forwards.

The logic breaks down when Coles isnt the right guy to stick on for CCS or at 6 at all.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:52 pm**

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:28 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:01 pm
p/d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:51 pm Marcus cross field kicks were tops but, jeez, he is experienced enough now to stop trying to create magic each time he gets the ball. Bloody frustrating player.
In fairness, if he didn't create magic, it wasn't gonna come from Lawrence or Slade.

Puja
You don't necessarily need magic. Trust in the process and look to move the opposition defence around, look for weaknesses and then pry them open.

Unless the process is to KADAB in certain situations (albeit I’m sure the coaches would be expecting better quality). The entire midfield are doing it which makes me think it’s to instruction. There’s precedent. The tactic to keep the ball for multiple phases looking for the opening clearly isn’t what Strictly Ballroom and/or The Wiggler want.
Smith played the percentages bloody well today, I thought - I’m sure you (p/d) think popping to runners on his shoulder/one/two out isn’t looking for magic - bar the odd mistake and all players (other than Carter vs BIL) make the odd mistake. He even put in a kick to the corner, the maverick.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:52 pm**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:26 pm Don’t be afraid to draft someone from college who plays in the same position of a good player you already have if you think they can be better.

We have just spent nearly five years watching dross and seem to be happy losing a two test series, albeit closely, to a team that haven’t played in months and months under a brand new head coach whose had his hands on them for two (I think) weeks I think we need reinforcements in all positions.
That said, I think we’re agreeing. We def need some finds in weak positions but if we find the next Dan Carter to replace the Smiths (I look forward to the posts working in their lyrics) and Ford then I’d be just as happy, if not more so, than if we found a good test IC. I’m desperately hoping Will Joseph is the next ‘find’.

Fair enough, sounds.like I was reading too much into he word "need"

As for rookies - at club level, absolutely, and you've time to get them used to the level before the bigger matches towards the end of the season.
Internationally, I'm always wary of picking someone who's burst into the scene and hasn't proven if it's quality, or being an unknown, and wary of setting them back by throwing them in before they're properly used to the pace of the premiership.
I don't think any player ever has been harmed by waiting 12 months before being capped, but several have by not waiting.
Bring them into training squads during their breakthrough season, but give them a chance to show their learnings, and avoid Second Season Syndrome, before throwing them to the wolves of international rugby.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:40 pm**

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:37 pm
FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:49 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:58 am

Coles v CCS shouldn’t even be a comparison tbh, very different players.

A CCS and Earl combo with an 8 tbc would be worth a look. Earl was a curates egg in NZ I thought.
I thought CCS was cream crackered when he came off today. Last week he seemed to come off early but this week he'd emptied the tank and we needed another option. Coles seems to be the default option as we need both lock and 6 cover and as Coles has experience at both in he goes. It's been disappointing he couldn't stake a claim for the 19 shirt going forwards.
The logic breaks down when Coles isnt the right guy to stick on for CCS or at 6 at all.

You keeping saying it and then get reminded that he's played plenty at 6 previously and he isn't good enough to force out either of the locks. We need the 19 shirt wearing sub to cover lock and 6. He's the logical option for now.

CCS empties the tank and can't seem to play the full 80 so we need someone to do the job. It'll no doubt cheer you up when Chessum or Ted Hill replace him in the Autumn.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:47 pm**

Frustrating results as I think those tests were there to win if we had been clinical with our field positions. From my perspective MSmith failed to convince and I see Ford as the 10 to the World Cup. I think the poorer attacking form of Lawrence and Earl were related to not having a 10 putting them into space.

In some ways it was good to test a few players out to identify those not at the required standard currently - namely Rodd, Coles, Spencer and Steward.

There must be some big lads around 25-30 playing in the top two divisions and working hard with the goal of being our THP…!

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:00 pm**

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 4:40 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 3:37 pm
FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:49 pm

I thought CCS was cream crackered when he came off today. Last week he seemed to come off early but this week he'd emptied the tank and we needed another option. Coles seems to be the default option as we need both lock and 6 cover and as Coles has experience at both in he goes. It's been disappointing he couldn't stake a claim for the 19 shirt going forwards.
The logic breaks down when Coles isnt the right guy to stick on for CCS or at 6 at all.
You keeping saying it and then get reminded that he's played plenty at 6 previously and he isn't good enough to force out either of the locks. We need the 19 shirt wearing sub to cover lock and 6. He's the logical option for now.

CCS empties the tank and can't seem to play the full 80 so we need someone to do the job. It'll no doubt cheer you up when Chessum or Ted Hill replace him in the Autumn.

You keep repeating the same thing too....as i said I get the logic. Unfortunately all the evidence is that he is a poor intl 6. I`m well aware hes played at 6 competently at club level...though not that much in the last year.I dont need reminding or patronising thanks.

Demonstrating the definition of madness here. Both me and SB.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:19 pm**

You two keep arguing the same point

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:20 pm**

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:21 pm Up until the last two games, Earl has shown up very well at 8 and CCS and Underhill compliment each other quite well IMO. While I accept that the NZ back row outplayed ours at the breakdown, I don’t see a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I’d need some convincing on Earl as a 7. IMO, Underhill has done a lot to cement his place and nothing to warrant being dropped. Earl’s strength is his carrying. I’m less convinced by him in the main aspects I want to see in a 7. His tackling and breakdown work in particular would be a huge step down from Underhill’s.

Leave him at 8 or put him in the 20 shirt. If he does play 7, I don’t think CCS is the right 6 to pair him with. Then you’d probably need a fit Tom Curry at 6.

Interesting- why do you think Earl plus CCS wont work on the flanks?
Earl has been an odd mix of high workrate and daft errors of judgement.

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:21 pm**

p/d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:19 pm You two keep arguing the same point

no sh8t

. And expecting a different result

Posted: **Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:31 pm**

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:10 pm
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 1:15 pm
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 11:51 am

Negative impact bench bar Sleightholme and possibly Cole.

Baxter and Sleightholme big bonuses on tour.
A couple ‘finds’ each window and we’ll be golden.
I think the only "finds" we need are props and centres TBH, then some depth around the wider squad.
Props don't really come through as "finds" in the same way that backs and even backrowers can.

Get Langdon some international experience, and 2&16 are fine.
Itoje, Martin and Chessum has the 2nd row sorted for the 23
Backrow is an embarrassment of riches in all 3 positions, but seems to be difficult finding a combination that just clicks, and gets the most out of the desired game-plan.
Mitchell, JvP is fine, Quirke has potential if he can earn the starting shirt at Sale, he'll be ready for England.
Ford, Smith & Smith is as good a stable of FHs as anyone in the world.
IFW, Freeman and Sleightholme is up there with SA and France on the wing.
Furbank needs a backup who doesn't change the gameplan - I expect Bath to provide an option this season whichever of TdG and Harris win that battle, Mallins may play himself into another last-chance as well.

We have no centres for either shirt who are of the desired standard, and no props (either side) who don't come with significant question marks.

I'd call Baxter a find, but yes. The centre thing is just weird...Ollie may get there at 13 certainly going forward.

RugbyRebels

NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2

Re: NZ vs England - round 2