RugbyRebels

Did Marler make himself unavailable?

Tigersman wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Out of interest which 12 should be going instead of Porter if Porter is a troll/WTf selection?

It’s more a highlight of the lack of 12’s coming up/are fit

I’d take Dingwall as back up 12 and take Lozowski instead.

Just noticed no Daly.

Somewhat funny
Playing 2 people out of position over someone who arguably had the best game of a centre this weekend. Especially Lozowski who has played like 4 games at 12 in the last 5 years

But would suit Eddie Jones selection I guess

I mean, I like Porter as a player just generally, but I'm far from convinced from him as a 12. Runs a good line and carries effectively, but I've rarely seen him create a space for someone else. Plus his defensive alignment isn't great - I'd call him a 13 out of position as much as Dingwall.

Very happy not to have Daly in the squad - hadn't spotted his absence on first glance, but glad that we're not just reverting back to him out of habit. Means Marchant's being given another go at 13, which he thoroughly deserves.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’d take Dingwall as back up 12 and take Lozowski instead.

Just noticed no Daly.

Somewhat funny
Playing 2 people out of position over someone who arguably had the best game of a centre this weekend. Especially Lozowski who has played like 4 games at 12 in the last 5 years

But would suit Eddie Jones selection I guess

I mean, I like Porter as a player just generally, but I'm far from convinced from him as a 12. Runs a good line and carries effectively, but I've rarely seen him create a space for someone else. Plus his defensive alignment isn't great - I'd call him a 13 out of position as much as Dingwall.

Very happy not to have Daly in the squad - hadn't spotted his absence on first glance, but glad that we're not just reverting back to him out of habit. Means Marchant's being given another go at 13, which he thoroughly deserves.

Puja

Dingwall has always gone very well at 12, and has played there a lot this season- his defence there is very good btw.

Still mystified as to why Daly was ever moved from the wing, and why he is ever at 13 internationally.

So from yesterday there is no Collier, Chick, Atkinson, Singleton, WGC and Bailey. Also no T Hill, Blamire, Davison, Jefferies, OHC, Mitchell and Radwan from the BaaBaas match squad.
No Marler - i guess he's asked not to go. No Daly or Malins either.
Porter is the bolter and Schickerling has obviously impressed enough in training to get 3rd TH spot. He is dynamic in the loose, which is something Collier isnt.
Walker eases Blamire out of 3rd hooker.
Only 2 FH's so i imagine Furbank will cover if necessary.
Only 1 recognised 8, so if Billy goes down its....er?
5 locks and i reckon at least 2 of them are inferior to Dave Ribbans.
Care picked to nurse Randall and JVP. Mitchell is very hard done by.
The 2 apprentice players are bright talents but are they there to observe and train, or to play if called upon?

I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

Do you think he's a genuine 12 though?

Puja

Good spot on Malins too.

FKAS wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Out of interest which 12 should be going instead of Porter if Porter is a troll/WTf selection?

It’s more a highlight of the lack of 12’s coming up/are fit

There's also the aspect of Porter's versatility. We know Eddie loves a utility option, I see Furbank is selected again, Porter does handily cover pretty much the entire backline outside of 9 and 10. He hasn't played 15 for Tigers but that was his preferred position for the Sydney Uni team (where he was also captain when they won the championship). Eddie could be eying up as an option for the 23 shirt knowing he has enough pace, step and physicality to cover a host of positions and give some options.

Randall and Care are very lucky, they were both dire yesterday. Mitchell unlucky, is it just the concerns over his stamina? Can't be anything else as he's been fantastic this season.

In fairness, given that England's forwards seemed to give themselves a watching brief only at the breakdown yesterday, it was a pretty difficult game for a 9 to shine in.

Banquo wrote:Good spot on Malins too.

Feel like Malins is going the same way as Lawrence, in that he's being dropped for not completely changing games when the entire team has seemed set up not to play to his strengths.

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

I thought Tomkins was pretty good actually, surprised he was yanked; pretty similar stats to Porter except for less missed tackles and more passes. Its a shame we let him go- after his initial intl bad time, he's developed into a good player.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Banquo wrote:Good spot on Malins too.

Feel like Malins is going the same way as Lawrence, in that he's being dropped for not completely changing games when the entire team has seemed set up not to play to his strengths.

He's certainly out of position on the wing internationally- he was really dreadful there. IMO he's a 10 all day.

Lawrence is a different story imo.

Banquo wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

I thought Tomkins was pretty good actually, surprised he was yanked; pretty similar stats to Porter except for less missed tackles and more passes. Its a shame we let him go- after his initial intl bad time, he's developed into a good player.

Yes that's the obvious one who got away really.
Feel if England wasn't so hung up on Manu and looked to move away from him earlier Thompkins would've stayed with England.


That being Said Kelly would've most likely toured if Fit regardless.

Banquo wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

I thought Tomkins was pretty good actually, surprised he was yanked; pretty similar stats to Porter except for less missed tackles and more passes. Its a shame we let him go- after his initial intl bad time, he's developed into a good player.

Mind, I have to wonder whether a chunk of that development has come from the faith shown in him by Wales. I'm not sure he'd be half the player he now is ifhe were still bimbling around the very fringes of England selection. Same with Chris Harris.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

I thought Tomkins was pretty good actually, surprised he was yanked; pretty similar stats to Porter except for less missed tackles and more passes. Its a shame we let him go- after his initial intl bad time, he's developed into a good player.

Mind, I have to wonder whether a chunk of that development has come from the faith shown in him by Wales. I'm not sure he'd be half the player he now is ifhe were still bimbling around the very fringes of England selection. Same with Chris Harris.

Puja

Possibly, or sarries have worked hard with him at 12 now Barritt has retired, iirc he was playing 13 initially with Wales.

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

Do you think he's a genuine 12 though?

Puja

In the league who is that is fit I guess?

Bath - Ojomoh very talented had some injury issues not major but still
Bristol - Bedlow interesting prospect
Glous - Atkinson played himself out of the squad yesterday
Exeter - Devoto massive amounts of serious injuries
Quins - Non EQP
Tigers - Kelly injured
Irish - Non EQP
Falcons - Lucock average Club man
Saints - Non EQP
Sale - Manu or Non EQP
Sarries - Non EQP
Wasps - Non EQP
Worcester - Non EQP

Porter tbh isn't going to play anyway at most he might be a bench 23 player. But he's solid and tbh with the way england wants to play (Simple as fuck) he fits that mould of just crash and work hard

Saints- Dingwall . He's played 12 a lot, as I may have mentioned

Banquo wrote:Saints- Dingwall . He's played 12 a lot, as I may have mentioned

I think the fact I have also pointed that out may have undermined your argument. Unreliable & non-credible witness, and all that. Apols.

Tigersman wrote:

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

Do you think he's a genuine 12 though?

Puja

In the league who is that is fit I guess?

Bath - Ojomoh very talented had some injury issues not major but still
Bristol - Bedlow interesting prospect
Glous - Atkinson played himself out of the squad yesterday
Exeter - Devoto massive amounts of serious injuries
Quins - Non EQP
Tigers - Kelly injured
Irish - Non EQP
Falcons - Lucock average Club man
Saints - Non EQP
Sale - Manu or Non EQP
Sarries - Non EQP
Wasps - Non EQP
Worcester - Non EQP

Porter tbh isn't going to play anyway at most he might be a bench 23 player. But he's solid and tbh with the way england wants to play (Simple as fuck) he fits that mould of just crash and work hard

Not unfair in terms of who else is there, but I still remain terrified of Porter playing 12 for England - I'm still pretty nervous about him playing there for Tigers! I'm thrilled for him to be in the England team as a 13, but as a 12 I see him as someone press-ganged inside and, if we're doing that, I'd rather have Dingwall who is more defensively solid there.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Saints- Dingwall . He's played 12 a lot, as I may have mentioned

I think the fact I have also pointed that out may have undermined your argument. Unreliable & non-credible witness, and all that. Apols.

But we're now aware that you've played against Andrew Sheridan, which helps your case.

Puja

Porter's an Ok call. Its not as if he's beating off a truckload of competitors. We've had a glaring issue finding a decent 12 for years. If we can shoehorn one in like Porter or Dingwall (who i regard as a far superior player) then so be it.
Real pity Kelly got crocked and Ojomoh just hasnt pressed on from his early season promise.

Can someone explain the wtf about this squad? As I don’t get it. We’re missing some players through injury, otherwise it seems, dare I say it, sensible. I’d pick another wing, Bailey, and no 3rd fb, though.

In the pack, I still don’t get shields. Picked when he was crap. Now he’s shown form he doesn’t get a look in. And he seems to fit exactly what Eddie wants in a 6.

fivepointer wrote:. We've had a glaring issue finding a decent 12 for years. If we can shoehorn one in like Dingwall (who i regard as a far superior player).

sighs but ok

Stom wrote:Can someone explain the wtf about this squad? As I don’t get it. We’re missing some players through injury, otherwise it seems, dare I say it, sensible. I’d pick another wing, Bailey, and no 3rd fb, though.

In the pack, I still don’t get shields. Picked when he was crap. Now he’s shown form he doesn’t get a look in. And he seems to fit exactly what Eddie wants in a 6.

I agree, its ok by and large. Its all we got, give or take some marginals.

Dingwall played a lot but he isn't a genuine 12 (Just like Porter isn't a genuine 12) which was what was asked...
Most of the games Dingwall played 12 in Saints also struggled granted against teams like Tigers, Racing, Sarries, Quins.

Saints best run of games had Hutchinson 12 and Dingwall 13.

TBH Dingwall might be considered 12 on this tour and Porter a 13, nothing says otherwise we don't know what's in Eddie's mind maybe Porter will play on the wing.

Not that it matter because Farrell will start 12 and we will end up getting Furbank at 12 if Farrell goes down no doubt...

Tigersman wrote:Dingwall played a lot but he isn't a genuine 12 which was what was asked...
TBH Dingwall might be considered 12 on this tour and Porter a 13, nothing says otherwise.

Not that i matter because Farrell will start 12 and we will end up getting Furbank at 12 if Farrell goes down no doubt...

....so what is your definition of a 'genuine' 12, other than one who has played a lot at 12 and looked very happy there?

Hutchinson plays at 12 with Dingwall because Dingwall defends so much better than Hutchinson at 13; they have played the other way round, and actually Dingwall at 12 and Proctor at 13 would be seen as a very strong combo for some games. Their best run of games usually involved Lawes, Ludlam and Biggar being available

He's a genuine centre- possibly a bit old fashioned to expect them to have all the skills (run, pass, kick, defend) to play either inside or outside, ie the days of left and right centre. But he has those skills, which I agree are especially rare in defence. And I say this as someone who makes a fuss about anyone assuming you can interchange easily.