RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:They never call 45 in to camp.

It’s 45 primarily to enable experimentation and to manage form and injuries.

Manage form? Interesting.....

Yes - as in flexibility to call-up the players in better form

How often are the 45 players stood down by England to build sensible rest periods into their season? I ask this as bar the extra training weeks with England it doesn't seem the RFU are getting a lot for their money

Scrumhead wrote:Yes - as in flexibility to call-up the players in better form

er, ok.

Eddie, quoted by the DT:

Wasps no.8, Nathan Hughes, is also on the injury list and if Vunipola does not come up to physical scratch over the next three weeks, Jones revealed that Exeter’s Sam Simmonds is in pole position.
“Sam is light but runs good lines, is a good learner, a humble boy, outstanding,” said Jones whose monitoring of players extended to having a Christmas Eve chat with Wasps’ fly-half, Danny Cipriani.
“We had a discussion about what he needs to do,” said Jones. “If George Ford and Owen Farrell were (both) out injured, then there is a possibility we’d bring him in as a main no.10 but I wouldn’t have him in the squad as a supporting no.10.”

So, Cipriani is good enough to start but not a useful squad member????

Oakboy wrote:Eddie, quoted by the DT:

Wasps no.8, Nathan Hughes, is also on the injury list and if Vunipola does not come up to physical scratch over the next three weeks, Jones revealed that Exeter’s Sam Simmonds is in pole position.
“Sam is light but runs good lines, is a good learner, a humble boy, outstanding,” said Jones whose monitoring of players extended to having a Christmas Eve chat with Wasps’ fly-half, Danny Cipriani.
“We had a discussion about what he needs to do,” said Jones. “If George Ford and Owen Farrell were (both) out injured, then there is a possibility we’d bring him in as a main no.10 but I wouldn’t have him in the squad as a supporting no.10.”

So, Cipriani is good enough to start but not a useful squad member????

That suggests that Jones thinks he's a very good player, but just too much of a n0b to have twiddling his thumbs in camp. Fair enough really.

I'd say it suggests he realises that Cips needs to build familiarity with his side, and wouldn't really achieve much in 3 place.

Oakboy wrote:Eddie, quoted by the DT:

Wasps no.8, Nathan Hughes, is also on the injury list and if Vunipola does not come up to physical scratch over the next three weeks, Jones revealed that Exeter’s Sam Simmonds is in pole position.
“Sam is light but runs good lines, is a good learner, a humble boy, outstanding,” said Jones whose monitoring of players extended to having a Christmas Eve chat with Wasps’ fly-half, Danny Cipriani.
“We had a discussion about what he needs to do,” said Jones. “If George Ford and Owen Farrell were (both) out injured, then there is a possibility we’d bring him in as a main no.10 but I wouldn’t have him in the squad as a supporting no.10.”

So, Cipriani is good enough to start but not a useful squad member????

Presumably that actually reads as "good player, total asshat".

Raggs wrote:I'd say it suggests he realises that Cips needs to build familiarity with his side, and wouldn't really achieve much in 3 place.

I'd say Cips said don't bother calling me up unless I'm in the match day squad, flippantly. More likely, Eddie doesn't want to invest development time in a 30 year old third or worse choice. Slightly odd to even mention it tbh.

Tom Moore wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Eddie, quoted by the DT:

Wasps no.8, Nathan Hughes, is also on the injury list and if Vunipola does not come up to physical scratch over the next three weeks, Jones revealed that Exeter’s Sam Simmonds is in pole position.
“Sam is light but runs good lines, is a good learner, a humble boy, outstanding,” said Jones whose monitoring of players extended to having a Christmas Eve chat with Wasps’ fly-half, Danny Cipriani.
“We had a discussion about what he needs to do,” said Jones. “If George Ford and Owen Farrell were (both) out injured, then there is a possibility we’d bring him in as a main no.10 but I wouldn’t have him in the squad as a supporting no.10.”

So, Cipriani is good enough to start but not a useful squad member????

Presumably that actually reads as "good player, total asshat".

ha! that too.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd say it suggests he realises that Cips needs to build familiarity with his side, and wouldn't really achieve much in 3 place.

I'd say Cips said don't bother calling me up unless I'm in the match day squad, flippantly. More likely, Eddie doesn't want to invest development time in a 30 year old third or worse choice. Slightly odd to even mention it tbh.

No doubt it was in response to a question from the Daily Heil with their Cipriani love-in.

Puha

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd say it suggests he realises that Cips needs to build familiarity with his side, and wouldn't really achieve much in 3 place.

I'd say Cips said don't bother calling me up unless I'm in the match day squad, flippantly. More likely, Eddie doesn't want to invest development time in a 30 year old third or worse choice. Slightly odd to even mention it tbh.

It's all fair enough apart from not having tried him to see if he can get more out of the back line than Farrell or Ford. He regularly gets more out of the Wasps' backs, despite being paired with Robson (another reject), than Ford does from the Leicester backs even though paired with Youngs, the first choice SH. I know quality of ball from the forwards etc. is a factor but earlier in the article, Eddie defends his selection of Hartley and suggests that some players are just better internationals than they are club players. I just can't see that logic in the Cipriani/Ford/Farrell comparison if he has not compared the three at FH in similar circumstances in the international XV.

That's been a constant Eddie line on Cips for a while, that he's only worth having in the squad as the #1 pick. Whether one reads into it Cips is disruptive, or whether Cips is all too likely to show up the starting choices in training, or whether it's just one of those things Eddie says and one reads little into it if anything is open to question.

Ignoring the 45 number; and just going with who I'd want involved with a decent balance.

LHP: MVunipola, Marler, Genge (Obano)
HK: George, Cown-Dickie, Hartley (Taylor)
THP: Cole, Sinckler, Williams, Thomas (Hill)
LK: Launchbury, Lawes, Itoje, Kruis, Isiekwe (Ewels)
FL: Robshaw, Underhill, BCurry, Armand, Wilson (TCurry)
N8: BVunipola, Hughes, Simmonds (Mercer)
23

SH: Youngs, Care, Robson, Spencer (Maunder)
FH: Ford, Farrell, Smith (Cipriani)
CE: Losowski, Devoto, Te’o, Joseph, Slade (Francis/Marchant)
WG: Daly, May, Nowell, Rokoduguni (Lewington)
FB: Brown, Watson (Woodward)
18

NB: I’m not considering Tuilagi until he gets through the rest of this season, has a summer break and a pre-season and shows some form in September/October

Much more interesting than the turgid stuff about where Cipriani is in the pecking order, is that Eddie seems to really rate Sam Simmonds. Billy and Simmonds in the backrow together would certainly go a long way to sorting some of the ball carrying issues we’ve had.

100% agree on that Timbo. I was equally pleased to read the comments on Simmonds.

Digby wrote:
Hookers: George, Taylor, LCD
Looseheads: Vunipola, Marler, Genge
Tightheads: Cole, Sinckler, Hill, Williams
Locks: Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis
Back Row: B Curry, T Curry, Kvesic, Robshaw, Clifford, Simmonds, Hughes, Vunipola

22 Forwards

Scrumhalves: Care, Youngs, Robson
Flyhalves: Cirpiani, Ford, Farrell
Centres: Eastmond, Tuilagi, Joseph, Slade, Marchant
Wings: Wade, May, Daly, Rokoguguni
Back Three: Watson, Lozowski, Nowell

18 Back

I may be a little Sale biased, but I’d add Harrison into the prop mix and Solomona into the wings. And Jono Ross can’t be far off the mix in the back row I would have thought.

From a non-Sale perspective I also still think Brown in the back three, Rhodes (when qualified) in the locks, Thomas in the props and Teo amongst the centres need to be considered.

BenHK wrote:

Digby wrote:
Hookers: George, Taylor, LCD
Looseheads: Vunipola, Marler, Genge
Tightheads: Cole, Sinckler, Hill, Williams
Locks: Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis
Back Row: B Curry, T Curry, Kvesic, Robshaw, Clifford, Simmonds, Hughes, Vunipola

22 Forwards

Scrumhalves: Care, Youngs, Robson
Flyhalves: Cirpiani, Ford, Farrell
Centres: Eastmond, Tuilagi, Joseph, Slade, Marchant
Wings: Wade, May, Daly, Rokoguguni
Back Three: Watson, Lozowski, Nowell

18 Back

I may be a little Sale biased, but I’d add Harrison into the prop mix and Solomona into the wings. And Jono Ross can’t be far off the mix in the back row I would have thought.

From a non-Sale perspective I also still think Brown in the back three, Rhodes (when qualified) in the locks, Thomas in the props and Teo amongst the centres need to be considered.

Out of curiousity - what do you think we need Rhodes for? That squad already excludes Isiekwe and Ewels, who are hard done by, and even if we're 6 locks down, there's the likes of Slater to contend with as well. What do you see Rhodes offering as a lock that the others don't?

Puja

I’m not sure Rhodes would add anything as a lock, but as an abrasive 6 who is also a very good lineout operator, I think he’s right up Eddie’s street.

I’m not a fan of all this poaching but I can totally see Eddie picking Rhodes and Shields as soon as he is able to.

Who'd want the non English Rhodes when we could simply pick Shields

Puja wrote:

BenHK wrote:

Digby wrote:
Hookers: George, Taylor, LCD
Looseheads: Vunipola, Marler, Genge
Tightheads: Cole, Sinckler, Hill, Williams
Locks: Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes, Kruis
Back Row: B Curry, T Curry, Kvesic, Robshaw, Clifford, Simmonds, Hughes, Vunipola

22 Forwards

Scrumhalves: Care, Youngs, Robson
Flyhalves: Cirpiani, Ford, Farrell
Centres: Eastmond, Tuilagi, Joseph, Slade, Marchant
Wings: Wade, May, Daly, Rokoguguni
Back Three: Watson, Lozowski, Nowell

18 Back

I may be a little Sale biased, but I’d add Harrison into the prop mix and Solomona into the wings. And Jono Ross can’t be far off the mix in the back row I would have thought.

From a non-Sale perspective I also still think Brown in the back three, Rhodes (when qualified) in the locks, Thomas in the props and Teo amongst the centres need to be considered.

Out of curiousity - what do you think we need Rhodes for? That squad already excludes Isiekwe and Ewels, who are hard done by, and even if we're 6 locks down, there's the likes of Slater to contend with as well. What do you see Rhodes offering as a lock that the others don't?

Puja

Isiekwe was an oversight who should definitely be in there. I don’t expect Rhodes to make a starting 23, but I like him as a ball carrier and, with his SH experience, can probably impart a hell of a lot of knowledge onto the likely starting back row.

Digby wrote:Who'd want the non English Rhodes when we could simply pick Shields

I don’t see it as an either/or situation. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but I think there’s a high chance Eddie will pick both.

I’m curious to see how Shields gets on, but I’d have less of an issue with his selection than Rhodes who is a pure poach.

Who knows, perhaps we’ll see a back row of full-on poaches: 6. Rhodes 7. Graham 8. Hughes ...

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Who'd want the non English Rhodes when we could simply pick Shields

I don’t see it as an either/or situation. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but I think there’s a high chance Eddie will pick both.

I’m curious to see how Shields gets on, but I’d have less of an issue with his selection than Rhodes who is a pure poach.

Who knows, perhaps we’ll see a back row of full-on poaches: 6. Rhodes 7. Graham 8. Hughes ...

Who Eddie picks is a little different to who we'd pick 'tis true, and it seems the theme of the thread. Can't say I know much about Shields, but for myself I wouldn't be inclined to giving Rhodes a shot, on ability or nationality

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Who'd want the non English Rhodes when we could simply pick Shields

I don’t see it as an either/or situation. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but I think there’s a high chance Eddie will pick both.

Agreed. If fit I half expect Shields to be picked for the Saffa tour tbh. And Rhodes is a very good player who seems right up Eddie’s street.

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Who'd want the non English Rhodes when we could simply pick Shields

I don’t see it as an either/or situation. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but I think there’s a high chance Eddie will pick both.

Agreed. If fit I half expect Shields to be picked for the Saffa tour tbh. And Rhodes is a very good player who seems right up Eddie’s street.

.....and why do we think Shields is making himself available? Rhodes is very physical and effective, but has no inclination to use his peripheral vision. But you are right, they are both the sort of wholehearted, physical triers that Eddie seems to be settling for at flank.