RugbyRebels

French flankers wearing the wrong numbers. Christ. Here we go again.

Mikey Brown wrote:French flankers wearing the wrong numbers. Christ. Here we go again.

Yes, it confused me no end that Jean Pierre Rives used to wear the 6 shirt ditto Eric Champ...

TheNomad wrote:

Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.

One of those locks has been playing 6 all season - which makes that look more balanced

And there aren't 6 10s there. Slade has been at 13 all year, Francis is happy in either role, and Farrell started at 12 for the Lions as well as all 6Ns, so I don't feel we're lacking cover at 12 or 13. I'd have still liked Marchant to be there personally and not sure what Francis adds. He wouldn't be there if Teo was fit in my opinion

It does still rather inform what sort of flanker the locks make, and what sort of centre the 10s make.

Banquo wrote:Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.

Or not, as the case may be

Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.

Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja

Digby wrote:

TheNomad wrote:

Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.

One of those locks has been playing 6 all season - which makes that look more balanced

And there aren't 6 10s there. Slade has been at 13 all year, Francis is happy in either role, and Farrell started at 12 for the Lions as well as all 6Ns, so I don't feel we're lacking cover at 12 or 13. I'd have still liked Marchant to be there personally and not sure what Francis adds. He wouldn't be there if Teo was fit in my opinion

It does still rather inform what sort of flanker the locks make, and what sort of centre the 10s make.

Fair comment!

The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.

Brown's presence in the squad indicates that Eddie has yet to write him off and gives Haskell hope.

Despite his earlier suggestions about Lions players, he has rested nobody has he?

So, Simmonds gets picked at 7 for the Chiefs this weekend. Interesting.

Poor Matt Kvesic

fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.

Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.

TheNomad wrote:So, Simmonds gets picked at 7 for the Chiefs this weekend. Interesting.

Poor Matt Kvesic

Yes, Kvesic is what, 4th choice?

On the SH situation. I don't think Spencer has what it takes. I like Maunder but he obviously can't be picked. However, it's a real issue that if Youngs or Care are injured we're picking a complete rookie or Wigglesworth who certainly isn't the future and is a totally different style of scrumhalf. At some point, Jones has to admit that his third choice SH isn't up to the standard he'd like and work with what he has.

Interesting to see Simmonds has been picked at 7 for Exeter’s visit to Sale. Could that be anything to do with Eddie?

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting to see Simmonds has been picked at 7 for Exeter’s visit to Sale. Could that be anything to do with Eddie?

Almost certainly. If he can make a good run at 7, you'd have to say he's in better form than Underhill or TCurry. Good head-to-head this weekend.

Puja

TheNomad wrote:

Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.

...not sure what Francis adds.

Other than being a starting Super Rugby 10/12 for the past couple of seasons? I think having players with experience in that kind of environment will be very valuable.

Adam_P wrote:

TheNomad wrote:

Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.

...not sure what Francis adds.

Other than being a starting Super Rugby 10/12 for the past couple of seasons? I think having players with experience in that kind of environment will be very valuable.

Could the same not be said of Haskell? Neither is playing particularly well at present in the Premiership and that's surely the most important current benchmark.

We're very well stocked in this squad at both the positions he covers and I doubt he'd be in the squad if were Te'o were fit.

At the same time, Marchant is looking great and could genuinely knock on the door the RWC

So yeah, I remain unsure

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.

Or not, as the case may be

ha!

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.

Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.

They are both much better locks than blindsides

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.

Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.

They are both much better locks than blindsides

I don't disagree but it looks as if Eddie will pick one of them at 6. Otherwise, why have Ewels or Isiekwe in the squad ahead of Armand, for example?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.

Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja

Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen , what then?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.

Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja

Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen , what then?

Foden?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja

Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen , what then?

Foden?

Maro Itoje more likely.

Stick Ford there.

Mikey Brown wrote:Stick Ford there.

I'm amazed it doesn't come up more as an idea. It's nice that it doesn't, but it does surprise me

I thought it was universally acknowledged that if you're shorter than 5'10" you're only allowed to play scrum-half and perhaps hooker.