RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I just do get how Quirke has that showing vs SA, then Randall is favoured yet not worthy of even getting on the pitch. I wish we had some sort of clue who else was capable.

Succession planning at 9 has been an omnishambles for Jones’s entire tenure.

RR's least contraversial comment of the decade

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I just do get how Quirke has that showing vs SA, then Randall is favoured yet not worthy of even getting on the pitch. I wish we had some sort of clue who else was capable.

Succession planning at 9 has been an omnishambles for Jones’s entire tenure.

RR's least contraversial comment of the decade

Yeah, I didn’t expect any argument on this one!

p/d wrote:Impressed with Italy today

Yeah. Of course it begs the question whether that was their best or that is their new standard, but they did look to have some of their fire back and think the score one flattered France a bit.

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Impressed with Italy today

Yeah. Of course it begs the question whether that was their best or that is their new standard, but they did look to have some of their fire back and think the score one flattered France a bit.

As Kay said their physicality/fitness lasted the full 80. Hopefully they will show similar next week and give us a good test

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:
Bit harsh writing Randell off after only 2 appearances and one of those he was MoM!

He played Vs USA and Canada. It's hardly a testing atmosphere. He may well improve and comeback into contention but currently he's in the squad to make up the numbers whilst Quirke is getting game time. He needs to develop a box kicking game that's consistently good and varied. If he adds that in then Eddie might change his mind.

Is the bolded bit true? I’ve never known Jones to think a player will improve with his club more than England. May have missed a quote, mind.

Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

chris1850 wrote:Steward was poor yesterday but allowed one poor performance amongst all the good ones I guess. Quirke gave Care a master class at the Stoop today

Other than one shanked kick he dealt comfortably with everything. England's attacking malaise meant he never got the ball in an occasion he wasn't static and facing a wall of defenders. We want more from him but we'd have given our left arm for a solid fullback in crappy conditions in seasons gone by.

I really don't understand why we've ceased using Steward charging into the line from deep. The combination of him arriving late and at full tilt plus Smith's delayed passing worked very nicely in the AIs. Didn't feature once yesterday and that has to be a coaching directive.

on the latter yes, but its all linked to Eddies three centre idea, which, like having the 15 as playmaker causes consequences out of kilter with benefit. Overthinking.

We played with the three centre idea in the Autumn as well but used Steward as described. We also allowed the third centre to roam and come into the line which we didn't yesterday. Marchant spent most the game hugging the touchline which is a waste of his talents.

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Impressed with Italy today

Yeah. Of course it begs the question whether that was their best or that is their new standard, but they did look to have some of their fire back and think the score one flattered France a bit.

I suppose I'm the only one who would accept a defeat by Italy if it got rid of Jones.

I think it would be hilarious, but I'm not really sure where that would leave us. We can't just take Farrell or another top international coach at a moments notice.

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Impressed with Italy today

Yeah. Of course it begs the question whether that was their best or that is their new standard, but they did look to have some of their fire back and think the score one flattered France a bit.

Posted a good video on them there that posited they were on the rise and finally looking forward rather than backwards: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... ad#p259200

Mikey Brown wrote:I think it would be hilarious, but I'm not really sure where that would leave us. We can't just take Farrell or another top international coach at a moments notice.

"Another"?

Puja

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
He played Vs USA and Canada. It's hardly a testing atmosphere. He may well improve and comeback into contention but currently he's in the squad to make up the numbers whilst Quirke is getting game time. He needs to develop a box kicking game that's consistently good and varied. If he adds that in then Eddie might change his mind.

Is the bolded bit true? I’ve never known Jones to think a player will improve with his club more than England. May have missed a quote, mind.

Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

Ah, ok but you’ve written as if it’s a fact rather than your opinion. Is there a quote or confirmation he’s been sent back to Sale for match fitness. As I said, it doesn’t seem a Jones type decision, whether to improve quality or sharpness.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Is the bolded bit true? I’ve never known Jones to think a player will improve with his club more than England. May have missed a quote, mind.

Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

Ah, ok but you’ve written as if it’s a fact rather than your opinion. Is there a quote or confirmation he’s been sent back to Sale for match fitness. As I said, it doesn’t seem a Jones type decision, whether to improve quality or sharpness.

No idea I've not read all of the Eddie comments, there's too many. Given Quirke went back to start and Randall sat getting splinters it seems the most likely explanation. I guess selection next week will be a good indication.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

Ah, ok but you’ve written as if it’s a fact rather than your opinion. Is there a quote or confirmation he’s been sent back to Sale for match fitness. As I said, it doesn’t seem a Jones type decision, whether to improve quality or sharpness.

No idea I've not read all of the Eddie comments, there's too many. Given Quirke went back to start and Randall sat getting splinters it seems the most likely explanation. I guess selection next week will be a good indication.

Ah, ok, it’s your opinion.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
He played Vs USA and Canada. It's hardly a testing atmosphere. He may well improve and comeback into contention but currently he's in the squad to make up the numbers whilst Quirke is getting game time. He needs to develop a box kicking game that's consistently good and varied. If he adds that in then Eddie might change his mind.

Is the bolded bit true? I’ve never known Jones to think a player will improve with his club more than England. May have missed a quote, mind.

Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

He started 2 weeks ago v Ospreys, but otherwise he hasn't played

chris1850 wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Is the bolded bit true? I’ve never known Jones to think a player will improve with his club more than England. May have missed a quote, mind.

Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

He started 2 weeks ago v Ospreys, but otherwise he hasn't played

I stand corrected.

Looked sharp today didn't he.

FKAS wrote:

chris1850 wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Quirke hasn't played for nearly two months before playing today. Match fitness rather than improving.

He started 2 weeks ago v Ospreys, but otherwise he hasn't played

I stand corrected.

Looked sharp today didn't he.

He did. When we've been used to Will Cliff (who is so slow, these days), having Raffi and now Faf as well available makes all the difference. Simply because of their speed at the ruck and delivery of the ball.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Other than one shanked kick he dealt comfortably with everything. England's attacking malaise meant he never got the ball in an occasion he wasn't static and facing a wall of defenders. We want more from him but we'd have given our left arm for a solid fullback in crappy conditions in seasons gone by.

I really don't understand why we've ceased using Steward charging into the line from deep. The combination of him arriving late and at full tilt plus Smith's delayed passing worked very nicely in the AIs. Didn't feature once yesterday and that has to be a coaching directive.

on the latter yes, but its all linked to Eddies three centre idea, which, like having the 15 as playmaker causes consequences out of kilter with benefit. Overthinking.

We played with the three centre idea in the Autumn as well but used Steward as described. We also allowed the third centre to roam and come into the line which we didn't yesterday. Marchant spent most the game hugging the touchline which is a waste of his talents.

Yes and it was a shit show v Oz (and I think you remarked how much Steward was on the wing after his try) and didn’t happen v Sa coz Tuilagi went off and so we had a standard back formation which amazingly looked better.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: on the latter yes, but its all linked to Eddies three centre idea, which, like having the 15 as playmaker causes consequences out of kilter with benefit. Overthinking.

We played with the three centre idea in the Autumn as well but used Steward as described. We also allowed the third centre to roam and come into the line which we didn't yesterday. Marchant spent most the game hugging the touchline which is a waste of his talents.

Yes and it was a shit show v Oz (and I think you remarked how much Steward was on the wing after his try) and didn’t happen v Sa coz Tuilagi went off and so we had a standard back formation which amazingly looked better.

I didn't mention the wing thing, mainly because it looked to me more like three centres and dual fullbacks in a slightly weird pendulum rotation thing where Slade would drop back to make the third man in the pendulum.

I also don't particularly buy much into standing your fullback on the wing. If that's where the opposition want to kick then put your best man there. Tigers famously did it against Gloucester in the Prem final when Tuilagi and Rabeni ran riot. Tigers worked out quickly that Glaws were kicking down the touchline with every box kick so stood Murphy there to take the kicks. Murphy mopped them all up with ease and then would spin a pass inside to the marauding Alesana who was tearing up from 15. I bet Lamb very much appreciated his 9s telegraphed kicking.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
We played with the three centre idea in the Autumn as well but used Steward as described. We also allowed the third centre to roam and come into the line which we didn't yesterday. Marchant spent most the game hugging the touchline which is a waste of his talents.

Yes and it was a shit show v Oz (and I think you remarked how much Steward was on the wing after his try) and didn’t happen v Sa coz Tuilagi went off and so we had a standard back formation which amazingly looked better.

I didn't mention the wing thing, mainly because it looked to me more like three centres and dual fullbacks in a slightly weird pendulum rotation thing where Slade would drop back to make the third man in the pendulum.

I also don't particularly buy much into standing your fullback on the wing. If that's where the opposition want to kick then put your best man there. Tigers famously did it against Gloucester in the Prem final when Tuilagi and Rabeni ran riot. Tigers worked out quickly that Glaws were kicking down the touchline with every box kick so stood Murphy there to take the kicks. Murphy mopped them all up with ease and then would spin a pass inside to the marauding Alesana who was tearing up from 15. I bet Lamb very much appreciated his 9s telegraphed kicking.

apols was sure it was you. Anyway, it was a shitshow of confused backs with oft three flat centres crowding the space and no room for steward who was simply not able to be involved. It was being 'innovative` with poor outcomes. In game switching as you describe is well and dandy with players who know each other and can form a simple reactive strategy- my point on Stewad was v oz he was out on the wing both sids of the ball, and in defence it was tackling as a wing, not fielding kicks- a mess, and the backs were poor because of it.

My original point was that Steward isnt being used well because our backs deployment is confused, and allied to the selection 'policy` wrt things like use of centres on the blindside. I reckon they are confused, most garishly in defence.

With Faf fit again though, is Quirke going to start enough games to suggest he should be starting for England?

Barbeary played the full game on Saturday for Wasps. Certainly a lower intensity than Test rugby, but he's not injured. The Italy game is one of those where you think, 'why have these players in the squad if you aren't going to play them against the weakest opponent?' But then Jones normally doubles down after a loss. And to be fair, while I was one of those dismissive of Ludlam last week I thought he played pretty well on Saturday.

Peej wrote:With Faf fit again though, is Quirke going to start enough games to suggest he should be starting for England?

Barbeary played the full game on Saturday for Wasps. Certainly a lower intensity than Test rugby, but he's not injured. The Italy game is one of those where you think, 'why have these players in the squad if you aren't going to play them against the weakest opponent?' But then Jones normally doubles down after a loss. And to be fair, while I was one of those dismissive of Ludlam last week I thought he played pretty well on Saturday.

...and I hear Barbeary was poor on Saturday. TBH, there were so many new combos on Saturday, if no established player is fit for Italy, you need to run the combos again

....brand new international second row (albeit some club time), brand new back row, brand new (ish) centre combo, and possibly a brand new back three. Its quite stark when you write it

Banquo wrote:

Peej wrote:With Faf fit again though, is Quirke going to start enough games to suggest he should be starting for England?

Barbeary played the full game on Saturday for Wasps. Certainly a lower intensity than Test rugby, but he's not injured. The Italy game is one of those where you think, 'why have these players in the squad if you aren't going to play them against the weakest opponent?' But then Jones normally doubles down after a loss. And to be fair, while I was one of those dismissive of Ludlam last week I thought he played pretty well on Saturday.

...and I hear Barbeary was poor on Saturday. TBH, there were so many new combos on Saturday, if no established player is fit for Italy, you need to run the combos again

....brand new international second row (albeit some club time), brand new back row, brand new (ish) centre combo, and possibly a brand new back three. Its quite stark when you write it

He was, yes. But one bad game and all that.

I take your point about some of the new units, but a lot of these individual players have a lot of experience - ranging from domestic titles, Euro titles, to international and Lions caps.

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

p/d wrote:Impressed with Italy today

Yeah. Of course it begs the question whether that was their best or that is their new standard, but they did look to have some of their fire back and think the score one flattered France a bit.

Posted a good video on them there that posited they were on the rise and finally looking forward rather than backwards: http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... ad#p259200

Mikey Brown wrote:I think it would be hilarious, but I'm not really sure where that would leave us. We can't just take Farrell or another top international coach at a moments notice.

"Another"?

Puja

Agreed … my view on Andy Farrell may be clouded by his previous involvement with England, but right now, I don’t think I’d put him in the ‘top international coach’ category.

Ireland are looking very good, but how much of that is Andy Farrell and how much is the IRFU optimising for the national side along with the benefit of having 7 of the pack plus the 9, 10, 13 and 15 all from one club playing/training together all the time? That could easily go up to 13/15 starters when Henshaw and Lowe are fit, not to mention half the bench.

That kind of one-club dominance can be bad if that’s all you have, but Ireland are in a nice position where they can simply drop in the best players from other provinces to an otherwise very established side and team culture.

I’d say those factors are much more influential than Andy Farrell’s coaching skills.

Was Barbeary poor? Looked a bit fatigued in defence once or twice, but then so did a few other Wasps players.

In attack he was offering himself up a lot, and whilst he didn't ahve too many obvious eye catching breaks, it was normally due to Exeter putting 3 players into every tackle on him, which helps the team regardless.

Stats have him down as 24 carries, 66 meters, 3 defenders beaten. Made a dozen tackles as well, but missed 6. As I said though, from watching there was quite a few misses that will have worried the coaching staff I reckon.

I just mentioned Farrell as (I think) Oakboy had mentioned pilfering him from the Irish. Agreed Ireland have an ideal setup that really seems to make the most of their resources. I'd think Farrell has learned a lot from 2015 then getting an extended apprenticeship with Schmidt, but I couldn't say whether he's a "top" coach or not.

It's a moot point either way. First we get to see whether Ireland have peaked a year too soon for the RWC.

Peej wrote:With Faf fit again though, is Quirke going to start enough games to suggest he should be starting for England?

Barbeary played the full game on Saturday for Wasps. Certainly a lower intensity than Test rugby, but he's not injured. The Italy game is one of those where you think, 'why have these players in the squad if you aren't going to play them against the weakest opponent?' But then Jones normally doubles down after a loss. And to be fair, while I was one of those dismissive of Ludlam last week I thought he played pretty well on Saturday.

Last season, when Quirke broke into the first team squad, Sanderson frequently brought him on after 50/55mins. With his phenomenal progress, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him and Faf pretty well alternate in the starting spot. Strong rumours that Faf is leaving at the end of the season for Japan, so it makes sense to give Quirke more game time. He's proved he is more than ready. Faf is a fantastic player and Quirke is the future. We are fortunate indeed to have, arguably, the two best SHs in the Prem for the rest of the season at least.