Oakboy wrote:Will Maunder and T'eo get the chance to cement places? One of Farrell or Ford plays at 10, clearly, but can the need for both decline in Eddie's mind? A 12 that carries well and a 9 that gives quality service has to make him think, surely?
Sadly, Maunder got 3 minutes on tour to make his case. With Exeter signing White and still having Townsend and Chudley, I'm concerned that he might not get very many minutes for Exeter for a good while.
We're stuck with Youngs and Care for the nonce, I suspect.
Oakboy wrote:I wouldn't argue with any of that. I'm still confident that Hughes can get better, mind. He baled the scrum out several times and just looks comfortable at test level.
He did look very impressive indeed and his carrying was much improved. Although I'm fairly certain that the rest of his 8 might point out that he wouldn't've had to bale them out if he'd bothered pushing at a scrum or two!
Puja
As a matter of interest, would he be left to make that decision alone? For example, might he not have been prepared for a scrum retreat by management? Or, might he have taken or been told to take such action based on the refereeing interpretation? More and more, referees are saying 'play it' even when the front rows go down.
Oakboy wrote:I wouldn't argue with any of that. I'm still confident that Hughes can get better, mind. He baled the scrum out several times and just looks comfortable at test level.
He did look very impressive indeed and his carrying was much improved. Although I'm fairly certain that the rest of his 8 might point out that he wouldn't've had to bale them out if he'd bothered pushing at a scrum or two!
Puja
As a matter of interest, would he be left to make that decision alone? For example, might he not have been prepared for a scrum retreat by management? Or, might he have taken or been told to take such action based on the refereeing interpretation? More and more, referees are saying 'play it' even when the front rows go down.
Interesting question, but I suspect it was his quirk for a couple of reasons - a) we rarely performed a quick strike and pick a la Japan - we kept the ball in the scrum and gave it a chance to go forwards, and b) he put his shoulders down a lot more in the second test, presumably after having been told off.
To my mind, the difference between scrummaging with 7 and 8 is so pronounced that the only excuse for leaning on like he did in the first is if you are making a Japan-like tactical play to pick immediately. Even if you are preparing for a scrum retreat, you're going to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy if you don't push a little.
Who was Last meant to be before auto-correct got involved? Loz?
Banquo's right, but I do think he has some firmly held opinions about how it's easiest to win. Namely rock solid set-piece, physical power whenever you can get it, exploiting every period of chaos in the opposition defence, and plenty of character.
bitts wrote:The big question seems to be "what does Eddie actually want?"
If he's genuinely looking to play an all court game with as much emphasis on attack as defense, then the Hask's days are numbered. Wilson and T Curry have shown they are more rounded players than him, and Robshaw is just better.
If he genuinely wants a running threat at 12 Faz may also be under pressure if Ford keeps kicking like he has been as Faz, for all his improvements, just doesn't have the same range of skills. If he wants to playmakers the. It will probably stay as Ford/Faz as no-one else has really put their hand up. And unless one of Slade, Last or Mallinder starts the season with a bang I can't see anyone taking his place.
Brown and Hartley, you'd think, would also be under pressure. They are both solid, but don't offer as much as others around the park.
If he wants to play a safety first, pressure based game, then all will probably stay on.
Eddie wants to win....don't think he is especially dogmatic about how.
Well yes, but what does he think best the style of play is to win a world cup with the players available?
Peat wrote:Who was Last meant to be before auto-correct got involved? Loz?
Banquo's right, but I do think he has some firmly held opinions about how it's easiest to win. Namely rock solid set-piece, physical power whenever you can get it, exploiting every period of chaos in the opposition defence, and plenty of character.
erm....yes. But not many would have much of a different start point.
Peat wrote:Who was Last meant to be before auto-correct got involved? Loz?
Banquo's right, but I do think he has some firmly held opinions about how it's easiest to win. Namely rock solid set-piece, physical power whenever you can get it, exploiting every period of chaos in the opposition defence, and plenty of character.
erm....yes. But not many would have much of a different start point.
Eh. I've seen plenty of teams try and cheat on the scrum a little for more carrying power and it's pretty common for teams to omit a back row lineout jumper. Actually so does Eddie most of the time to be fair. I don't think everyone values aggression as highly as he does. And if the majority of coaches up here put a premium on exploiting chaos, then they are lying to themselves.
Plus a lot of coaches would put in rock solid defence and I think Jones is okay carrying a few less-than-stellar defenders if it gives him better attacking options.
Peat wrote:Who was Last meant to be before auto-correct got involved? Loz?
Banquo's right, but I do think he has some firmly held opinions about how it's easiest to win. Namely rock solid set-piece, physical power whenever you can get it, exploiting every period of chaos in the opposition defence, and plenty of character.
erm....yes. But not many would have much of a different start point.
Eh. I've seen plenty of teams try and cheat on the scrum a little for more carrying power. I don't think everyone values aggression as highly as he does. And if the majority of coaches up here put a premium on exploiting chaos, then they are lying to themselves.
Plus a lot of coaches would put in rock solid defence and I think Jones is okay carrying a few less-than-stellar defenders if it gives him better attacking options.
Through choice, any coach would want what you say (esp at intl level), or some hair splitting version. They just may not be able to get it. I'm not sure I agree on your last point either.
Oakboy wrote:I wouldn't argue with any of that. I'm still confident that Hughes can get better, mind. He baled the scrum out several times and just looks comfortable at test level.
He did look very impressive indeed and his carrying was much improved. Although I'm fairly certain that the rest of his 8 might point out that he wouldn't've had to bale them out if he'd bothered pushing at a scrum or two!
Puja
I feel Hughes had a cracking Tour and has bought a pacy and explosive go forward element that Billy for all his raw physicality and power doesn't have. Their both great options but I think Hughes is starting to catch Billy up. One big advantage Hughes has here is that he has the height (196 m compared to Billy's 188 m) to be a 3rd lineout target together with the locks - an advantage shared by Beaumont too.
Oakboy wrote:I wouldn't argue with any of that. I'm still confident that Hughes can get better, mind. He baled the scrum out several times and just looks comfortable at test level.
He did look very impressive indeed and his carrying was much improved. Although I'm fairly certain that the rest of his 8 might point out that he wouldn't've had to bale them out if he'd bothered pushing at a scrum or two!
Puja
I feel Hughes had a cracking Tour and has bought a pacy and explosive go forward element that Billy for all his raw physicality and power doesn't have. Their both great options but I think Hughes is starting to catch Billy up. One big advantage Hughes has here is that he has the height (196 m compared to Billy's 188 m) to be a 3rd lineout target together with the locks - an advantage shared by Beaumont too.
Hughes had a great tour. Really established himself as second choice and a good bench option. Billy still way out ahead for me.
ideally would like Clifford, Mercer or Chisholm to have a big season at 8 and give us another option there. Personally I don't think Beaumont will be getting too many chances.
Peat wrote:Who was Last meant to be before auto-correct got involved? Loz?
Banquo's right, but I do think he has some firmly held opinions about how it's easiest to win. Namely rock solid set-piece, physical power whenever you can get it, exploiting every period of chaos in the opposition defence, and plenty of character.
erm....yes. But not many would have much of a different start point.
Eh. I've seen plenty of teams try and cheat on the scrum a little for more carrying power and it's pretty common for teams to omit a back row lineout jumper. Actually so does Eddie most of the time to be fair. I don't think everyone values aggression as highly as he does. And if the majority of coaches up here put a premium on exploiting chaos, then they are lying to themselves.
Plus a lot of coaches would put in rock solid defence and I think Jones is okay carrying a few less-than-stellar defenders if it gives him better attacking options.
The big difference for me is that Eddie does seem to put more of a premium on core skills. Particularly in the midfield. Apart from a brief flirtation with Burrell he's packed his side with people who can all pass etc. It may seem obvious but It's been a long time since an England coach has done that. Or indeed an international NH coach for that matter.
My point was that most coaches would have the start point you laid out when it comes to the easiest ways of winning- note, 'start'.
And my point is that when it comes to putting them into practice they have differing views of their importance and what they would mean.
well of course, you didn't say how, you said what. I suspect Eddie has trade offs, except on character.
I was picking the things he was least likely to trade off on. Except for the physicality thing, where it seems clear he really badly wants it but is unwilling to sacrifice better rugby players just to be more powerful.
Puja wrote:
He did look very impressive indeed and his carrying was much improved. Although I'm fairly certain that the rest of his 8 might point out that he wouldn't've had to bale them out if he'd bothered pushing at a scrum or two!
Puja
I feel Hughes had a cracking Tour and has bought a pacy and explosive go forward element that Billy for all his raw physicality and power doesn't have. Their both great options but I think Hughes is starting to catch Billy up. One big advantage Hughes has here is that he has the height (196 m compared to Billy's 188 m) to be a 3rd lineout target together with the locks - an advantage shared by Beaumont too.
Hughes had a great tour. Really established himself as second choice and a good bench option. Billy still way out ahead for me.
ideally would like Clifford, Mercer or Chisholm to have a big season at 8 and give us another option there. Personally I don't think Beaumont will be getting too many chances.
Yeah - I agree bitts.
Clifford is a talented and skilful option but he would need to have a massive season and speaking as a Quins fan, I'm becoming concerned his injury-proneness - particularly with concussions is going to limit him to being no more than a good club player.
Chisholm really stepped-up last season to a higher level than I thought he was capable of TBH. If he can back that up, he'll be one to watch.
Mercer is an obvious talent and I'll be interested to see how he keeps developing.
Beaumont is just a bit meh for me.
Sam Simmonds at Exeter really excites me. He's not big, but he's more powerful than his frame seems to suggest and is a proper athlete. He could well become the player I hoped Clifford was going to be.
Peat wrote:
And my point is that when it comes to putting them into practice they have differing views of their importance and what they would mean.
well of course, you didn't say how, you said what. I suspect Eddie has trade offs, except on character.
I was picking the things he was least likely to trade off on. Except for the physicality thing, where it seems clear he really badly wants it but is unwilling to sacrifice better rugby players just to be more powerful.
...and I'm saying most coaches would say the same just to confirm the circularity of this....ie its not a usp. I think Eddie's USP is adapting to what he has to work with. Think we are splitting irrelevant hairs
Okay, I'm saying a lot of coaches clearly don't value the same things the same way based on their choices. There's no way anyone would accuse Gatland of foregoing physicality for better players. Or Declan Kidney of picking the strongest scrum at all costs.
I know we're going round and round but I think you're being incredibly reductive and missing the point. I don't feel like I'm splitting hairs when you're saying "Any coach believes in that" and I'm going "Well they clearly don't based on actions". In any case, I would disagree about Jones' USP in being adapting to what he has to work with. I think he has his list of demands that he
Peat wrote:Okay, I'm saying a lot of coaches clearly don't value the same things the same way based on their choices. There's no way anyone would accuse Gatland of foregoing physicality for better players. Or Declan Kidney of picking the strongest scrum at all costs.
I know we're going round and round but I think you're being incredibly reductive and missing the point. I don't feel like I'm splitting hairs when you're saying "Any coach believes in that" and I'm going "Well they clearly don't based on actions". In any case, I would disagree about Jones' USP in being adapting to what he has to work with. I think he has his list of demands that he
I just think you were being pretty generic but was too polite to say so, and don't finish your sentences
Peat wrote:Okay, I'm saying a lot of coaches clearly don't value the same things the same way based on their choices. There's no way anyone would accuse Gatland of foregoing physicality for better players. Or Declan Kidney of picking the strongest scrum at all costs.
I know we're going round and round but I think you're being incredibly reductive and missing the point. I don't feel like I'm splitting hairs when you're saying "Any coach believes in that" and I'm going "Well they clearly don't based on actions". In any case, I would disagree about Jones' USP in being adapting to what he has to work with. I think he has his list of demands that he
I just think you were being pretty generic but was too polite to say so, and don't finish your sentences
Would have been a lot simpler to just say that to begin with. And yeah, I can't remember how I was planning to finish that sentence now
Peat wrote:Okay, I'm saying a lot of coaches clearly don't value the same things the same way based on their choices. There's no way anyone would accuse Gatland of foregoing physicality for better players. Or Declan Kidney of picking the strongest scrum at all costs.
I know we're going round and round but I think you're being incredibly reductive and missing the point. I don't feel like I'm splitting hairs when you're saying "Any coach believes in that" and I'm going "Well they clearly don't based on actions". In any case, I would disagree about Jones' USP in being adapting to what he has to work with. I think he has his list of demands that he
I just think you were being pretty generic but was too polite to say so, and don't finish your sentences
Would have been a lot simpler to just say that to begin with. And yeah, I can't remember how I was planning to finish that sentence now
as I said, I was just trying to be polite....not normally my style in truth
....and players will come and go.
