RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I'd still pick him for England ahead of Ford or Farrell.

I wouldn't. I would have done before we started picking Ford and Farrell back under Burt, but now there are so many caps on Ford and the flawless one I don't see an advantage in swapping them out for a test novice. It's a shame, and a waste of the most talented English player I've ever seen, but absent of injuries it's a done deal for me

Test novice?

Pretty much. He doesn't exactly have many starts

Raggs wrote:Supposedly Eddie said at a quins q&a that he thought Robson was too small for international duty. I have to assume he was taking the Michael though.

Perhaps he was talking about the diminutive Laura .....being at Quins I can only assume Stom or similar had shifted the conversation to their favoured sport

Spiffy wrote:Both Chudley and Robson looking better SHs than Care and Wiggy.

I would've said today was the perfect example of why Robson isn't capped. Balloony-passes, poor decision-making, and kicks that either went too far or barely went far enough to put the pack outside of the 10. Say what you will about Wiggy (and we do), but you know what you're going to get from him. Granted, that's not much, but it is at least vaguely consistent.

I'll agree with you on Chudley on today's form though.

Puja

I thought Robson was a bit erratic. Some of his passing isnt as slick as it needs to be. Chudley was very neat and tidy and a marked step up from White.

fivepointer wrote:I thought Robson was a bit erratic. Some of his passing isnt as slick as it needs to be. Chudley was very neat and tidy and a marked step up from White.

His passing was definitely suffering towards the end, but it was pretty much test intensity and he played the full 80, and he'd taken a relatively early bang to his knee (which may explain the variance in his kicking). Is it just me, or does he seem to pass the ball a lot further than the England 9s are normally required to? That'll add to accuracy issues also. Personally thought he had a very good game, even with the weaker parts here and there.

Raggs wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I thought Robson was a bit erratic. Some of his passing isnt as slick as it needs to be. Chudley was very neat and tidy and a marked step up from White.

His passing was definitely suffering towards the end, but it was pretty much test intensity and he played the full 80, and he'd taken a relatively early bang to his knee (which may explain the variance in his kicking). Is it just me, or does he seem to pass the ball a lot further than the England 9s are normally required to? That'll add to accuracy issues also. Personally thought he had a very good game, even with the weaker parts here and there.

I like Robson, he's rapid to the breakdown, puts pace on the game, makes quick decisions; I agree that Cipriani gives him a lot to do from a passing point of view, but that's something they should both be working on together....optimum distance for speed and accuracy of pass. Chudley also looked good.

Puja's take on Wigglesworth is interesting, because by that yardstick, Ben Youngs wouldn't be starting either.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I thought Robson was a bit erratic. Some of his passing isnt as slick as it needs to be. Chudley was very neat and tidy and a marked step up from White.

His passing was definitely suffering towards the end, but it was pretty much test intensity and he played the full 80, and he'd taken a relatively early bang to his knee (which may explain the variance in his kicking). Is it just me, or does he seem to pass the ball a lot further than the England 9s are normally required to? That'll add to accuracy issues also. Personally thought he had a very good game, even with the weaker parts here and there.

I like Robson, he's rapid to the breakdown, puts pace on the game, makes quick decisions; I agree that Cipriani gives him a lot to do from a passing point of view, but that's something they should both be working on together....optimum distance for speed and accuracy of pass. Chudley also looked good.

Puja's take on Wigglesworth is interesting, because by that yardstick, Ben Youngs wouldn't be starting either.

The difference is that Youngs has 60-odd caps and has shown that he can do it at the very top level. It's more difficult to make a case for Youngs Mark II when he comes without the proven temperament and years of experience, especially when he's not smashing at the door to get in.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
His passing was definitely suffering towards the end, but it was pretty much test intensity and he played the full 80, and he'd taken a relatively early bang to his knee (which may explain the variance in his kicking). Is it just me, or does he seem to pass the ball a lot further than the England 9s are normally required to? That'll add to accuracy issues also. Personally thought he had a very good game, even with the weaker parts here and there.

I like Robson, he's rapid to the breakdown, puts pace on the game, makes quick decisions; I agree that Cipriani gives him a lot to do from a passing point of view, but that's something they should both be working on together....optimum distance for speed and accuracy of pass. Chudley also looked good.

Puja's take on Wigglesworth is interesting, because by that yardstick, Ben Youngs wouldn't be starting either.

The difference is that Youngs has 60-odd caps and has shown that he can do it at the very top level. It's more difficult to make a case for Youngs Mark II when he comes without the proven temperament and years of experience, especially when he's not smashing at the door to get in.

Puja

I'd argue he has been the form 9 in the AP (EQP) for a long while now. If you think Wiggy is a better 9, then we diverge.

Your argument was about consistency, and knowing what you get; its true, from experience, you know what you get from Youngs, and that's inconsistency.

Banquo wrote:I'd argue he has been the form 9 in the AP (EQP) for a long while now. If you think Wiggy is a better 9, then we diverge.

Your argument was about consistency, and knowing what you get; its true, from experience, you know what you get from Youngs, and that's inconsistency.

I don't think Wiggy's a better 9. I think he's a safer pair of hands when needed to be dropped into a tournament at short notice and he's certainly a better kicker than Robson, which is a) not hard and b) fairly important to Eddie's game plan.

Of course the argument could (and should) be made that, if Robson had been involved with England more and been given specialised training and a few caps to see if he'd fold like a wet tissue under the pressure, then we wouldn't be in this Hobson's choice in the first place.

Puja

I think comparing the accuracy of the Wiggler with Robson is any where from unfair to chalk v cheese. Robson, and Wasps, like a high tempo on the game and Robson is asked/naturally moves the ball quicker. Wiggly, on the other hand, arrives at the ruck, puts his foot on the ball, marshals his entire pack into a conga to elongate the ruck, places his midfield at guard, analyses the recent fluctuations of the stock market and then puts a box kick on a six pence. With the contrasting styles, Wigster is bound to make less errors.
Chudley is of course a high class player having being schooled at the Goldington Rd school of excellence. Having said that, I think his chances of making the England team at pretty much zero. I did have a small glimmer of hope a couple of seasons back when he was undisputed first choice at Exeter and playing very well, but I always had the feeling he was one of those players who wouldn’t make the step up required at test level.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:I'd argue he has been the form 9 in the AP (EQP) for a long while now. If you think Wiggy is a better 9, then we diverge.

Your argument was about consistency, and knowing what you get; its true, from experience, you know what you get from Youngs, and that's inconsistency.

I don't think Wiggy's a better 9. I think he's a safer pair of hands when needed to be dropped into a tournament at short notice and he's certainly a better kicker than Robson, which is a) not hard and b) fairly important to Eddie's game plan.

Of course the argument could (and should) be made that, if Robson had been involved with England more and been given specialised training and a few caps to see if he'd fold like a wet tissue under the pressure, then we wouldn't be in this Hobson's choice in the first place.

Puja

yus. But its never too late, imo. Its not inconceivable that Wiggy will be starting to struggle a bit in 18 months time at the age of 36, then what?

Mellsblue wrote:I think comparing the accuracy of the Wiggler with Robson is any where from unfair to chalk v cheese. Robson, and Wasps, like a high tempo on the game and Robson is asked/naturally moves the ball quicker. Wiggly, on the other hand, arrives at the ruck, puts his foot on the ball, marshals his entire pack into a conga to elongate the ruck, places his midfield at guard, analyses the recent fluctuations of the stock market and then puts a box kick on a six pence. With the contrasting styles, Wigster is bound to make less errors.
Chudley is of course a high class player having being schooled at the Goldington Rd school of excellence. Having said that, I think his chances of making the England team at pretty much zero. I did have a small glimmer of hope a couple of seasons back when he was undisputed first choice at Exeter and playing very well, but I always had the feeling he was one of those players who wouldn’t make the step up required at test level.

yus

Puja wrote:
Of course the argument could (and should) be made that, if Robson had been involved with England more and been given specialised training and a few caps to see if he'd fold like a wet tissue under the pressure, then we wouldn't be in this Hobson's choice in the first place.

Puja

This, a hundred times over. I find the ‘he’s inexperienced line’ very annoying. Robson is clearly very talented but won’t ever have the international experience if that’s the excuse not to pick him. If Youngs and Care were world class players and clearly outperforming him in the Prem then I could understand it but they’re not.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:I'd argue he has been the form 9 in the AP (EQP) for a long while now. If you think Wiggy is a better 9, then we diverge.

Your argument was about consistency, and knowing what you get; its true, from experience, you know what you get from Youngs, and that's inconsistency.

I don't think Wiggy's a better 9. I think he's a safer pair of hands when needed to be dropped into a tournament at short notice and he's certainly a better kicker than Robson, which is a) not hard and b) fairly important to Eddie's game plan.

Of course the argument could (and should) be made that, if Robson had been involved with England more and been given specialised training and a few caps to see if he'd fold like a wet tissue under the pressure, then we wouldn't be in this Hobson's choice in the first place.

Puja

yus. But its never too late, imo. Its not inconceivable that Wiggy will be starting to struggle a bit in 18 months time at the age of 36, then what?

Pick Spencer who must be close to being 1st choice at Saracens.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't think Wiggy's a better 9. I think he's a safer pair of hands when needed to be dropped into a tournament at short notice and he's certainly a better kicker than Robson, which is a) not hard and b) fairly important to Eddie's game plan.

Of course the argument could (and should) be made that, if Robson had been involved with England more and been given specialised training and a few caps to see if he'd fold like a wet tissue under the pressure, then we wouldn't be in this Hobson's choice in the first place.

Puja

yus. But its never too late, imo. Its not inconceivable that Wiggy will be starting to struggle a bit in 18 months time at the age of 36, then what?

Pick Spencer who must be close to being 1st choice at Saracens.

He's an option, but I don't think a better one than Robson.

He's basically the same age as Robson, and as of yet, still isn't a starter in the big games.

Robson is a much better all-round player than Spencer IMO.

The only aspect I’d say Spencer is noticeably better at is place kicking which isn’t something we’d need from him with England.

I'd say Spencer has slightly better basics, passing and kicking.
I'd like to see either, or both, of them given a run rather then turn to Wiggy.
But it does pose a question. Why havent we produced better SH's in the last 8/9 seasons? For all the investment in academies, for all the excellence of our age grade rugby and the success of our U20s, we still struggle to find anyone with an unanswerable case to challenge 2 middling and inconsistent senior squad men.
Why is it that this position is such a problem for us?

Just watching the starts of the Sarries and Wasps games, and Robson seems to be generally passing further, and at high pace. Leading the players onto the ball often too. Less accurate, but on tougher passes. Could be camera angles or bias though.

The thing is, some of the time Wigglesworth kicking is bloody awful. So this idea that he's an outstanding kicking 9 is a bit of a fallacy. He's just lucky that Sarries' fantastic defence tend to limit any of the damage his shite kicks do. But as a season ticket holder at AP, I've seen plenty of 'em.

fivepointer wrote:I'd say Spencer has slightly better basics, passing and kicking.
I'd like to see either, or both, of them given a run rather then turn to Wiggy.
But it does pose a question. Why havent we produced better SH's in the last 8/9 seasons? For all the investment in academies, for all the excellence of our age grade rugby and the success of our U20s, we still struggle to find anyone with an unanswerable case to challenge 2 middling and inconsistent senior squad men.
Why is it that this position is such a problem for us?

Yes, I rate Spencer as currently above Robson. Given the starting shirt by Saracens, I think he'd improve, with his ultimate potential level well above Robson's. Added to that, he's more of a physical presence.

As for your general question on SHs, part of the problem has to be trusting young EQPs to start. I think Baxter is a superb DOR for Exeter but his decision to give the 9 shirt to White staggered me. It's a chicken and egg thing but there has to be pressure from somewhere to get our lads game time. Idealistically, I'd love to see all sorts of limits on foreign players. I'd restrict numbers generally and have rules about units of the team e.g. either SH or FH has to be EQ.

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'd say Spencer has slightly better basics, passing and kicking.
I'd like to see either, or both, of them given a run rather then turn to Wiggy.
But it does pose a question. Why havent we produced better SH's in the last 8/9 seasons? For all the investment in academies, for all the excellence of our age grade rugby and the success of our U20s, we still struggle to find anyone with an unanswerable case to challenge 2 middling and inconsistent senior squad men.
Why is it that this position is such a problem for us?

Yes, I rate Spencer as currently above Robson. Given the starting shirt by Saracens, I think he'd improve, with his ultimate potential level well above Robson's. Added to that, he's more of a physical presence.

As for your general question on SHs, part of the problem has to be trusting young EQPs to start. I think Baxter is a superb DOR for Exeter but his decision to give the 9 shirt to White staggered me. It's a chicken and egg thing but there has to be pressure from somewhere to get our lads game time. Idealistically, I'd love to see all sorts of limits on foreign players. I'd restrict numbers generally and have rules about units of the team e.g. either SH or FH has to be EQ.

I agree Spencer needs more game time, as he is caught between proving himself and executing the game plan. I think Robsons to be a better player and decision maker at this point in their respective development.

The 1014 articles and the like have really hammered home how complex international rugby planning us. I can see then why players tend not to be rushed on the back of a patch of club form. Time in the squad is a priority for Jones, so Wigglesworth and Haskell are retained in part because they've been around the squad a while. To be honest, i think wigglesworth showed how hard it was for him to get up to speed.

Not sure why Jones hasn't cast the net wider earlier, though. As several have pointed out it seems likely that some if the old players won't make it. Weren't several nines training with the squad even as not full members? Maybe one of them will come through this summer?

Still, weird to think that a coach effectively picks a world cup squad so far in advance. Are the other nations also doing that?

Jones has got himself into a position where one collision in the 1st minute could result in Wigglesworth having to play 79 minutes. Regardless of how well Jones has done generally that scenario should have been avoided.

Oakboy wrote:Jones has got himself into a position where one collision in the 1st minute could result in Wigglesworth having to play 79 minutes. Regardless of how well Jones has done generally that scenario should have been avoided.

lets not forget he got himself in a position where Hartley could have played 80 mins, he has now got that down to 40. Chances are Lawes will turn out to be a deft passer from the base of the scrum with a non too shabby box kick saving us from 79mins of Wiggy