RugbyRebels

TheNomad wrote:Separate point: Does anyone actually know the difference between the Currys? Is there a difference?

Swish their hair differently don't they?

I still think secretly replacing one at half time is the way forward.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:....but if you send a totally callow side who then get a bit of a walloping you learn nothing either. Needs a balance, but is difficult as the core of Eddies side will be in NZ, you'd think/hope/despise depending on jamboree affinity.

I don't know Argentina have the firepower to give us a walloping, even with my proposed team. They could certainly beat that team, but I don't think it would get dominated and I'd rather learn a lot from two defeats than bore our way to two pointless victories.

TheNomad wrote:Separate point: Does anyone actually know the difference between the Currys? Is there a difference?

From watching them carefully, I think Ben likes competing at the breakdown a bit more and has a talent at working his way through a maul to screw up opposition ball, whereas Tom enjoys putting his shoulder into people and going for big hits and carries. It's only slight differences though - they're both good all round.

Puja

Thanks! It's absolutely mental that they're still only 18

They make a crazy impact for players their age

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:....but if you send a totally callow side who then get a bit of a walloping you learn nothing either. Needs a balance, but is difficult as the core of Eddies side will be in NZ, you'd think/hope/despise depending on jamboree affinity.

However, we have just had our morale shattered by a belligerent Irish team.

Have we?!?! If we have then you should more than happy for as many as possible to go with the Lions whilst Jones tries to find people who don't react in such a way to a narrow loss away to a side who recently beat NZ.

Oakboy wrote: However, we have just had our morale shattered by a belligerent Irish team

what?

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote: However, we have just had our morale shattered by a belligerent Irish team

what?

Why else would we play that badly?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote: However, we have just had our morale shattered by a belligerent Irish team

what?

Why else would we play that badly?

They shattered morale with their prematch belligerence?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:rather learn a lot from two defeats than bore our way to two pointless victories.


Puja

bit of a straw man, but take your point

Hush! It's rude to point out someone's logical fallacies.

Puja

El Tigre wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: what?

Why else would we play that badly?

They shattered morale with their prematch belligerence?

someone had to say it!

Heavens forfend that we just had a bad day against a very good team, away from home.

Puja

Puja wrote:Heavens forfend that we just had a bad day against a very good team, away from home.

Puja

Now my morale is shattered.

Puja wrote:Heavens forfend that we just had a bad day against a very good team, away from home.

Puja

Define bad day, then!

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:Heavens forfend that we just had a bad day against a very good team, away from home.

Puja

Define bad day, then!

Our best players didn't play at their best, the Irish ruthlessly exploited our weaknesses at back row, and we failed to deal with their rush defence. A bad day. Not worthwhile rending our hair about or something which makes us a bad team overnight.

To cheer you up, apparently PlanetRugby has sources which tell them that Chris Ashton is a banker for a Lions spot. How much bullshit they're full of remains to be seen, but I thought it would please you.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:Heavens forfend that we just had a bad day against a very good team, away from home.

Puja

Define bad day, then!

Our best players didn't play at their best, the Irish ruthlessly exploited our weaknesses at back row, and we failed to deal with their rush defence. A bad day. Not worthwhile rending our hair about or something which makes us a bad team overnight.

To cheer you up, apparently PlanetRugby has sources which tell them that Chris Ashton is a banker for a Lions spot. How much bullshit they're full of remains to be seen, but I thought it would please you.

Puja

Thank you. Now tell me Brown, Youngs and Care are too but Watson, Daly and JJ are not. They can have Hartley, Cole and Itoje but not George, Launchbury or the Vs!!!!!

Balance is important. Personally, I see the Lions tour as an opportunity to look at players who are less proven at test level.

We know exactly what the likes of Cole, Launchbury or Farrell can produce, so it doesn't do any real harm for them to head to NZ. However, I'm really hoping the likes of Sinckler and Te'o don't get taken as dirt-trackers because they'd be far better served starting in Argentina.

The squad I named in the OP is what I expect to see from Eddie. What I'd like to see is:

1. Genge / Rapava-Ruskin
2. Taylor / Cowan-Dickie
3. Sinckler / Hill
4. Lawes / Ewels
5. Kruis (c) / Barrow (or Symons)
6. Robshaw / Chisholm
7. Haskell / Underhill
8. Hughes / Fearns
9. Robson / Spencer
10. Ford / Lozowski
11. May / Earle
12. Slade / Tompkins
13. Te'o / Marchant
14. Nowell / Wade
15. Woodward / Haley

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Define bad day, then!

Our best players didn't play at their best, the Irish ruthlessly exploited our weaknesses at back row, and we failed to deal with their rush defence. A bad day. Not worthwhile rending our hair about or something which makes us a bad team overnight.

To cheer you up, apparently PlanetRugby has sources which tell them that Chris Ashton is a banker for a Lions spot. How much bullshit they're full of remains to be seen, but I thought it would please you.

Puja

Thank you. Now tell me Brown, Youngs and Care are too but Watson, Daly and JJ are not. They can have Hartley, Cole and Itoje but not George, Launchbury or the Vs!!!!!

so Itoje is somehow on your downer list now?

Scrumhead wrote:Balance is important. Personally, I see the Lions tour as an opportunity to look at players who are less proven at test level.

We know exactly what the likes of Cole, Launchbury or Farrell can produce, so it doesn't do any real harm for them to head to NZ. However, I'm really hoping the likes of Sinckler and Te'o don't get taken as dirt-trackers because they'd be far better served starting in Argentina.

The squad I named in the OP is what I expect to see from Eddie. What I'd like to see is:

1. Genge / Rapava-Ruskin
2. Taylor / Cowan-Dickie
3. Sinckler / Hill
4. Lawes / Ewels
5. Kruis (c) / Barrow (or Symons)
6. Robshaw / Chisholm
7. Haskell / Underhill
8. Hughes / Fearns
9. Robson / Spencer
10. Ford / Lozowski
11. May / Earle
12. Slade / Tompkins
13. Te'o / Marchant
14. Nowell / Wade
15. Woodward / Haley

Surely we'll take extra front row cover? If we take just the 6 we'll be screwed if someone goes down on the day of the game.

Edit: with the coaching influence for the Lions forwards coming from England and Quins I can't see Sinckler not going tbh. Rowntree loves him. I also think Kruis is almost nailed on for similar reasons - Borthwick and Rowntree will persuade Gatland to get him in there.

On the assumption that the jamboree takes the following:
Mako, Marler, Cole, Itoje, Launch, Billy
Farrell, Joseph, Daly, Watson:

Genge, Rapava-Ruskin, Catt
George, Taylor, LCD,
Sinckler, Hill, Brookes
Kruis, Beaumont, Ewels, Barrow
Curry, Curry, Fearns, Underhill
Mercer, Morgan

Spencer, Robson, Maunder
Lozkowski, Burns
Teo, Slade, Marchant, James
Roko, Solomona, Wade
Woodward, Marshall, Haley

• Everyone who contributed in the 6N gets a rest except Te'o and Sinckler, who need more test rugby.
  3 9's and 3 15's, those being the biggest areas to work on in the backs.
  4 uncapped flankers probably a risk, but I hope never to see Wood or Terrible Timmy in an England squad again. I'd be happy to swap Williams for one of the Currys dependent on the U-20 coaches views.
  Could be persuaded of the same thing on Mercer too, would have Beaumont cover 8.
  Kruis to skipper.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Our best players didn't play at their best, the Irish ruthlessly exploited our weaknesses at back row, and we failed to deal with their rush defence. A bad day. Not worthwhile rending our hair about or something which makes us a bad team overnight.

To cheer you up, apparently PlanetRugby has sources which tell them that Chris Ashton is a banker for a Lions spot. How much bullshit they're full of remains to be seen, but I thought it would please you.

Puja

Thank you. Now tell me Brown, Youngs and Care are too but Watson, Daly and JJ are not. They can have Hartley, Cole and Itoje but not George, Launchbury or the Vs!!!!!

so Itoje is somehow on your downer list now?

No, you've got to make some concessions and he's the youngest!

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Balance is important. Personally, I see the Lions tour as an opportunity to look at players who are less proven at test level.

We know exactly what the likes of Cole, Launchbury or Farrell can produce, so it doesn't do any real harm for them to head to NZ. However, I'm really hoping the likes of Sinckler and Te'o don't get taken as dirt-trackers because they'd be far better served starting in Argentina.

The squad I named in the OP is what I expect to see from Eddie. What I'd like to see is:

1. Genge / Rapava-Ruskin
2. Taylor / Cowan-Dickie
3. Sinckler / Hill
4. Lawes / Ewels
5. Kruis (c) / Barrow (or Symons)
6. Robshaw / Chisholm
7. Haskell / Underhill
8. Hughes / Fearns
9. Robson / Spencer
10. Ford / Lozowski
11. May / Earle
12. Slade / Tompkins
13. Te'o / Marchant
14. Nowell / Wade
15. Woodward / Haley

Surely we'll take extra front row cover? If we take just the 6 we'll be screwed if someone goes down on the day of the game.

Edit: with the coaching influence for the Lions forwards coming from England and Quins I can't see Sinckler not going tbh. Rowntree loves him. I also think Kruis is almost nailed on for similar reasons - Borthwick and Rowntree will persuade Gatland to get him in there.

All fair points. Although with so many alternatives at lock, Gatland may yet decide against Kruis. Sinckler isn't Lions ready, but with Nel unlikely to be fit, he's probably the next best behind Furlong and Cole so is in the selection mix for sure. I'd much rather see him with England in Argentina.

On the extra front row cover, I'm pretty ambivalent on Mullan or Catt as an extra loosehead. Either or really ...

Tighthead is tougher - particularly if Sinckler makes the Lions tour. I went with Hill on the basis of better long-term potential, but on form, both he and Brookes are only really in consideration by default. Cooper-Woolley is in with a shout, but I'd be tempted to go with Harry Williams as decent and consistent scrummaging tighthead.

Banquo wrote: so Itoje is somehow on your downer list now?

Bloody penalty machine. Gats can 'ave him

The more I see of Harry Williams the more I want him in the squad, certainly for Argentina. Brookes' star has waned this season in spite of Saints starting him. Suspect that's more down to protecting Hill tho at this stage. Brookes has won a lot of pens this season that should've gone the other way, he'd be found out in Argentina. Sinkler and Hill aren't dominant scrummagers yet. I'm struggling to think of a better scrummaging Eng TH than Williams and I include Cole in that. Still only 26 so a possibility?

Agreed. Arguably Cooper-Woolley is better around the park, but Williams is a very decent scrummaging tighthead and definitely has his merits.

I'd be inclined to take Brookes. I think he's got the ability and did show up well playing for England. I though that he was going to usurp Cole but it didnt pan out that way. Attitude might be an issue and fitness certainly is, but he's worth having another look at.

If C-W could stay fit for longer than 5 minutes he'd be one consider. His injury record is really quite alarming. The guy never seems to play in more than 3 games on the bounce.

Williams has shown up well and is one who might force his way in. He's fine in the scrum and does put in a very good shift in the loose.

I'd seriously check on Collier's form. When on song he is a very solid scrummaging prop.

Collier has only just come back from injury. As a Quins fan, I'll always be happy to champion him, but it would be a stretch to pick him ahead of someone like Williams who offers similar qualities and is playing more regularly for a top 4 side.

Should have mentioned Schonert at Wuss. If we just want someone to scrummage he'd be ideal. Very limited presence in the loose, which does reduce his all round contribution though.