RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Cips has definitely been off colour, and the entire pre season and tin pot cup games were fielded by academy or fringe players, so come season start there was definitely a feel of us being undercooked. Slater being out is a big deal for us too. I think maybe our attack has been worked out a little and our energy levels look lower than they should. I’m inclined to give JA the benefit of the doubt and a couple of home wins and drier pitches might be all that’s needed to turn the tide.

Might it help Cipriani and, therefore, the team if there was consistent/settled selection at 9 and 12? Alternating/rotating (dithering) or whatever it's called every-other game has to mess with the tactics. Cipriani, at his best, is about quick, flat passing. Something about the midfield is slowing his game and the result is too much depth and an inability to cross the gainline.

I believe someone once advanced the opinion that Cipriani wasn't really effective unless he had a team built around him and tailored to him. I think the chopping and changing is definitely affecting his game.

Puja

Lol- when Ford is struggling its his fault, when Cips is struggling its someone elses??

Banquo wrote:Lol- when Ford is struggling its his fault, when Cips is struggling its someone elses??

I could easily claim the counter-argument. The point, surely, is that Ford is categorised by the England management and many knowledgeable people like yourself as the superior player of the two. As such, he presumably should be able to demonstrate superior game management whatever the circumstances . . . except that he does not. Plus, he gets pretty good continuity with the 9 because Youngs usually starts for both club and country.

I accept that Cipriani is unlikely to play for England again. I also accept that Farrell is going to start for England and I suspect, going forward, that it will be in the 10 shirt more often than not. In terms of creativity, that leaves England with a lower ceiling than if Ford had achieved consistent effectiveness, rather than his good game/bad game pattern. Ford has had chance after chance, of course.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lol- when Ford is struggling its his fault, when Cips is struggling its someone elses??

I could easily claim the counter-argument. The point, surely, is that Ford is categorised by the England management and many knowledgeable people like yourself as the superior player of the two. As such, he presumably should be able to demonstrate superior game management whatever the circumstances . . . except that he does not. Plus, he gets pretty good continuity with the 9 because Youngs usually starts for both club and country.

I accept that Cipriani is unlikely to play for England again. I also accept that Farrell is going to start for England and I suspect, going forward, that it will be in the 10 shirt more often than not. In terms of creativity, that leaves England with a lower ceiling than if Ford had achieved consistent effectiveness, rather than his good game/bad game pattern. Ford has had chance after chance, of course.

Err.

Also, I'm sorry but the 'good game, bad game' is just absolute nonsense.

The only two examples I've noticed being given of these poor performances are the Saints game the other day and the RWC final, in which every single player played badly on the day. I'm not saying that puts Ford above criticism, but it's very odd to think any level of 'game management' is going to fix a collective collapse in the entire team.

Did you see him come on and turn the game against Aus a few years back? Did you see him come on and salvage what would have been one of the most horrendous home losses in history (throwing away a 38 point lead) against Scotland? Did you see when he took absolute control against the ABs, whilst Farrell without his goal-kicking suddenly looked totally ordinary? He's also been very impressive when we tend to put him in charge taking care of the 1.5s away on summer tours.

I just do not get what you are seeing.

I would love to have had Cipriani involved more. I think he is a fantastic player. I just can't for the life of me see how you think having him addresses any of the areas where Ford is supposedly weak, aside from being "cocky".

Same here. There is no ‘good game, bad game’ pattern with Ford. He rarely plays badly for England but suffers from a media created perception of being flaky and the fact that he’s not Farrell or Cipriani.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lol- when Ford is struggling its his fault, when Cips is struggling its someone elses??

I could easily claim the counter-argument. The point, surely, is that Ford is categorised by the England management and many knowledgeable people like yourself as the superior player of the two. As such, he presumably should be able to demonstrate superior game management whatever the circumstances . . . except that he does not. Plus, he gets pretty good continuity with the 9 because Youngs usually starts for both club and country.

I accept that Cipriani is unlikely to play for England again. I also accept that Farrell is going to start for England and I suspect, going forward, that it will be in the 10 shirt more often than not. In terms of creativity, that leaves England with a lower ceiling than if Ford had achieved consistent effectiveness, rather than his good game/bad game pattern. Ford has had chance after chance, of course.

Except you are the one making excuses for Cips and having a go continually at Ford.

and I'm sorry, but your expectations of what a 10 can do in any circumstances is a bit naive. I think your summation of Ford's career is wrong, and even then, there is some mitigation given the degree to which he has been buggered about.

He was sh*t at the weekend, but then again, so was Cip.

Oakboy wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Cips has definitely been off colour, and the entire pre season and tin pot cup games were fielded by academy or fringe players, so come season start there was definitely a feel of us being undercooked. Slater being out is a big deal for us too. I think maybe our attack has been worked out a little and our energy levels look lower than they should. I’m inclined to give JA the benefit of the doubt and a couple of home wins and drier pitches might be all that’s needed to turn the tide.

Might it help Cipriani and, therefore, the team if there was consistent/settled selection at 9 and 12? Alternating/rotating (dithering) or whatever it's called every-other game has to mess with the tactics. Cipriani, at his best, is about quick, flat passing. Something about the midfield is slowing his game and the result is too much depth and an inability to cross the gainline.

I would argue that’s not really what is happening, there is a little rotation of course, but Simpson has played more at 9 than anyone else, Mark Atkinson has been 12 regularly, something DC is very familiar with, only 36 being benched could you argue is the difference. DC has lost accuracy in his passing, kicking and running lines so far this season. I don’t think it’s the structure around him that has dropped off at all.

How did match up between Dombrandt and Morgan go?—would think they might both be making strong cases for starting 8 berth in 2020 6 Nations?

Dombrandt rightly MOTM. Morgan played quite well and scored a lovely try but I can't see EJ suddenly including him after all this time.

I would have had Thorley as motm, but that’s just my opinion. Wouldn’t have said there was a great deal between either 8 in that game, both made hard yards, both scored tries and close work was good from each. No glaring mistakes either.

jngf wrote:How did match up between Dombrandt and Morgan go?—would think they might both be making strong cases for starting 8 berth in 2020 6 Nations?

Surely 3rd and 4th behind the world class Billy V and Macbeth?

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:How did match up between Dombrandt and Morgan go?—would think they might both be making strong cases for starting 8 berth in 2020 6 Nations?

Surely 3rd and 4th behind the world class Billy V and Macbeth?

And set me up in hope? But hush, no more