RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:...I really don't want Shields in the 23 but Jones will pick him....

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Oakboy wrote: If everybody was fit Launchbury would still be the first name on my team-sheet but Lawes would be the second.

If everybody was fit, Lauchbury wouldn't even be in the 23.

He's, at best, the 4th best lock available to England.

Rich wrote:

Oakboy wrote:...I really don't want Shields in the 23 but Jones will pick him....

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Best back row player currently available? Based on what? Two test matches?

Shields is the best backrower, Launch is 4th choice at best?

Shields is a better player than he’s shown so far, but it’s absolutely ludicrous to suggest he’s our best back rower.

Even if we include his SR experience, there is no justification whatsoever for giving him that kind of accolade in comparison to experienced test players. In the games he’s played for England he’s been at best anonymous and at worst, downright awful.

It’s hard to say where Launch is in the pecking order given Eddie’s recent penchant for playing locks in the back row. However, as I see it he and Lawes are neck and neck behind Itoje with Kruis next in line. Where you get ‘4th at best’ from really baffles me though. Who else do you think is potentially ahead of him? Ewels is decent but clearly a step down and Isiekwe has a lot of work to do to get back in contention if the others are fit after blotting his copy book in SA.

Honestly, I’d hate to see the team you’d pick.

Despite the media hype I think Launchbury and Lawes are both better than Itoje and would start them together when fit.

Rich wrote:

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:...Daly at 15's been an utter failure...

Puja

"Utter failure" ?

He's had three games there.

Six games there - he played all three South Africa games at 15 and didn't look comfortable. I'm willing to give a player time to adapt to a new position, but if it's been 6 games and he still looks clumsy and unsure, I think it's time to accept that it's not his position.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Shields is a better player than he’s shown so far, but it’s absolutely ludicrous to suggest he’s our best back rower.

Even if we include his SR experience, there is no justification whatsoever for giving him that kind of accolade in comparison to experienced test players. In the games he’s played for England he’s been at best anonymous and at worst, downright awful.

It’s hard to say where Launch is in the pecking order given Eddie’s recent penchant for playing locks in the back row. However, as I see it he and Lawes are neck and neck behind Itoje with Kruis next in line. Where you get ‘4th at best’ from really baffles me though. Who else do you think is potentially ahead of him? Ewels is decent but clearly a step down and Isiekwe has a lot of work to do to get back in contention if the others are fit after blotting his copy book in SA.

Honestly, I’d hate to see the team you’d pick.

He didn't really blot his copy book. Jones just hauled him off for no apparent reason when he was no worse than his teammates. He just did not get a fair chance to show his stuff. He may never get back in the good books as long as Jones is coach

p/d wrote:

Rich wrote:

Oakboy wrote:...I really don't want Shields in the 23 but Jones will pick him....

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Best back row player currently available? Based on what? Two test matches?

No, his career so far.


It seems people are willing to dismiss him based on two test matches though....

Puja wrote:

Rich wrote:

Puja wrote:

"Utter failure" ?

He's had three games there.

Six games there - he played all three South Africa games at 15 and didn't look comfortable. I'm willing to give a player time to adapt to a new position, but if it's been 6 games and he still looks clumsy and unsure, I think it's time to accept that it's not his position.

Puja

Jeez, I'd forgotten he played FB in SA.


I think he has all the attributes necessary to play FB...but just needs to play there all the time for Wasps.

I thought Anthony Watson was going to be the heir to the No 15 shirt but he looked a far lesser player at FB than h does on the wing.

is FB going to be a problem position again for England ?

Scrumhead wrote:Shields is a better player than he’s shown so far, but it’s absolutely ludicrous to suggest he’s our best back rower...

Best available with injuries and suspensions.

...it’s hard to say where Launch is in the pecking order given Eddie’s recent penchant for playing locks in the back row. However, as I see it he and Lawes are neck and neck behind Itoje with Kruis next in line. Where you get ‘4th at best’ from really baffles me though. Who else do you think is potentially ahead of him? Ewels is decent but clearly a step down and Isiekwe has a lot of work to do to get back in contention if the others are fit after blotting his copy book in SA.

Honestly, I’d hate to see the team you’d pick.

I'd say Kruis and Itoje are number 1 and 2. Lawes No 3


I certainly wouldn't have Lawes in the back row.

For what it's worth:

M.Vunipola-Hartley-Sinckler
Kruis-Itoje
Hughes (6) - B.Vunipola (8) - Curry (7)

Youngs - Farrell

May - Te'o - Manu/JJ - Watson

????

It’s obviously entirely subjective, but your team suggests we clearly have a very different idea on how we should be lining-up.

I’d be quite happy to never see Hughes in an England shirt again. He’s had a lot of chances and IMO hasn’t shown that he’s worth keeping in the picture unless injuries limit our options. Carrying aside (which Hughes has really done well at test level anyway), I would say that Wilson has done a better job playing out of position than Hughes ever has for England. Playing him at 6 would expose his lack of work rate and being involved in more rucks a) doesn’t play to his strengths and b) risks a lot more idiotic penalties.

A midfield of Te’o and Tuilagi is totally one dimensional and when you pair it with Farrell’s lack of creativity at 10, it’s only good for a Warrenball type of game. No thanks.

My team would be:

1. M. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Wilson
7. T. Curry/Underhill
8. B. Vunipola
9. B. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Daly
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. May
15. A. Watson

I’m not a massive fan of the Ford/Farrell combination but our attack has looked a million times better with them playing together than Farrell at 10 with a limited bother at 12.

Adam_P wrote:Despite the media hype I think Launchbury and Lawes are both better than Itoje and would start them together when fit.

Spot on!

Rich wrote:
is FB going to be a problem position again for England ?

It's starting to look that way. This close to the WC it was probably a good time to give Goode a run out. A very clever player. (and I hate myself for saying so, as 2012/2013 I was an ardent Foden supporter)

Rich wrote:

p/d wrote:

Rich wrote:

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Best back row player currently available? Based on what? Two test matches?

No, his career so far.


It seems people are willing to dismiss him based on two test matches though....

If he is anything like the player you suggest, you'd expect him to star for Wasps and raise the collective back-row level with his experience. Instead, when I watched him he was the worst back rower on the pitch - at GP level.

For England, he has yet to make a single, decisive, move-stopping tackle. He is slow to the breakdown and ineffective if he does get there. His handling is probably the worst of any of our backrowers to have played in the AIs - far inferior to Lawes's, for example. He has looked adequate in the lineout.

Rich wrote:

p/d wrote:

Rich wrote:

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Best back row player currently available? Based on what? Two test matches?

No, his career so far.


It seems people are willing to dismiss him based on two test matches though....

people are willing to dismiss him based on his showing since arriving at Wasps, to include '4 caps' for England. That said I'm sure he looked a world beater for the Hurricanes.

Adam_P wrote:Despite the media hype I think Launchbury and Lawes are both better than Itoje and would start them together when fit.

We just need to try and get every one fit. Having four top class second rows was a huge bonus. That was more important than which of them starts. Having players like sinckler who could come on and raise the intensity of the match for the last quarter. Having hughes coming on to replace billy etc.

It's been so long since we had the luxury of being able to do this and not just thought "who is actually fit".

Rich wrote:

p/d wrote:

Rich wrote:

Why not ?

He's the best back row player currently available to England.


It's absolutely amazing how people on here are able to judge a player based on two test matches.

Best back row player currently available? Based on what? Two test matches?

No, his career so far.


It seems people are willing to dismiss him based on two test matches though....

It seems like it's you doing the judging off test matches and not season-long performances...

Shields has been one of the lesser flankers in the Premiership this season. Never mind England. He's not shown anything to suggest he's a better player than any of the other backrows to play this autumn. Wilson has outperformed him every time, Underhill has been immense when on and Mercer has been underappreciated because his carrying has been limited (why, I don't know, he's damn good at it).

And Launch has consistently been our best lock. He's superb defensively, carries really well and has the awareness to make breaks and then offload. He also has the hands to play high quality rugby, something Itoje hasn't quite got yet, though he's improved a lot in this regard.

If it wasn't for Lawes' lack of grunt in the scrum and maul, I'd have him and Launch. But Itoje and Launch is our best lock pairing, I think.

Outside that, Hughes at flank is a disaster waiting to happen. He has the workrate of a sloth after a heavy night on the snowballs.

Even if I accept 10 man rugby, as your selection seems to suggest, I would not have many of those selections.

We have pace out wide, so when the opportunity arises, we need a 10 with the wit to get the ball there quickly. Which suggests Ford.

We also need the hands in the centres to get the ball there, which means only one of Te'o or Tuilagi, I'd go for the latter: an extra kicking option for 10 man rugby is always a good idea.

I can agree on Wigglesworthless, but for 10 man rugby, we need someone in the backrow to organise things. Robshaw is excellent at this, but Wilson also seems rather good there. We'd need someone to get in the face of the opposition and someone to chase the game if needed.

So, if we're doing 10 man rugby, I'd go for:

Mako
Hartley
Sinckler
Launch
Itoje
Lawes
Underhill
BillyV
Wigglesworthless
Ford
Big Joe
Farrell
Tuilagi
May
Brown

George, Genge, Williams, Kruis, Wilson, a stick of celery, Te'o, Daly.

Now, that's not 100 miles off what I would pick when everyone is fit if I were to want to play actual rugby...

Mako
Hartley
Sinckler
Launch
Itoje
Robshaw
Curry
BillyV
Youngs
Ford
Daly
Farrell
Tuilagi
May
Watson

George, Genge, Williams, Lawes, Underhill, Care, Te'o, Big Joe.

Rich - I think you're spot on. The constant criticism of Farrell on here was starting to take over, good to read someone arguing the other way.

I don't think he's the best player in the world, or the best English player, and frankly, a few years ago, I didn't rate him.

But he's seriously improved... He is a threat at 10 or 12, he's probing, looking to throw dummies, offload and he's a hugely improved running threat. His left to right passing isn't the finest and his tactical kicking isn't O'Gara-like but again it's improving. He can control a game and he's one of few players we have with the talent to be a match-winner at 10 or 12.

All this 'what does he actually do we' criticism isn't fair. He is clearly a talisman in this squad. The steal of Bok ball in our 22 was potentially a match saver in that game and whilst his hit was arguably illegal, it finished and won us the match. The ref was happy with it. I thought he was excellent vs New Zealand, he was driving us forward and his hit on the best no8 in the world was superb. If you saw the reaction to his tackle against Japan, the whole team were all over him afterwards, they clearly all rate him.

I have slated Hartley for a long time but the two of them provide grit, leadership and balls. We were fucking abysmal vs Japan in the 1st half, awful. Those two changed things. If we want to win in Dublin, we'd have literally no hope in that cauldron without the both of them.

We should be encouraged at this moment. I thought we'd lose to SA and get tonked by the ABs; neither of those things happened.

Itoje is looking a player again, Hartley's in his best form, we've found another prop in Moon, Sinkler is a different beast, Underhill has emerged, Lawes looks far better, Shields DID improve vs NZ, Farrell looks better than before, Ford is a lovely player as we know, Slade has improved, Cokanasiga is excellent. All of this with Tuilagi getting fit, Vunipolas, Genge, Watson, Launchbury, Kruis to come back... May is looking world-class... We're getting there.

The scapegoats for a poor first half against Japan (where Japan also played well) are Zach Mercer, Danny Care and Alex Lozowski, as all have been dropped from a 28 man squad.

Nathan Hughes and Piers Francis (yes, you read that correctly) are in, and Ted Hill is weirdly an apprentice again

Bloggs wrote:The scapegoats for a poor first half against Japan (where Japan also played well) are Zach Mercer, Danny Care and Alex Lozowski, as all have been dropped from a 28 man squad.

Nathan Hughes and Piers Francis (yes, you read that correctly) are in, and Ted Hill is weirdly an apprentice again

Piers Francis? Give me strength.

Danny Care has only been an impact/bench option for England for some time imv. He doesn't brain for 80 minutes of good test match rugby.

So power is the answer and brain is a verb sums the situation up?

How's Piers been playing since the internationals started?

Before them, he actually looked like the kind of player who might get a look in - but wasn't given the call…
Which, was quite different to when he was called up hah
Oh, EJ, you are an enigma!

Digby wrote:So power is the answer and brain is a verb sums the situation up?

Haha, sorry, typo.

My brain isn't good enough to understand what you've just written by the way, can you explain?

My original point was that Care often does well from the bench, but he's always shite when he starts.

Love to see Hill get more game time. Some come along that just need to be pushed out there. Hill is one of them..................Francis is not.

Mind you does Francis in the mix now point towards Ford missing out.