RugbyRebels

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:44 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:11 pm

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 2:32 pm

Lawrence is the perfect foil outside Atkinson. It would be very similar to how Bath set up to play.

If I was thinking like that, I'd try Dingwall and Freeman first. If it has to be one change, I'd retain Slade ahead of Lawrence.

One start at 13 this season for Freeman. He had a couple of runs at different points of last season but has otherwise no experience there.

indeed, as per smith m, needs some proper game time in a specialist position

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:44 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:11 pm

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 2:32 pm

Lawrence is the perfect foil outside Atkinson. It would be very similar to how Bath set up to play.

If I was thinking like that, I'd try Dingwall and Freeman first. If it has to be one change, I'd retain Slade ahead of Lawrence.

One start at 13 this season for Freeman. He had a couple of runs at different points of last season but has otherwise no experience there.

Edit: Banquo beat me to it.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 12:41 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:04 am As with Seb Atkinson, Willis needs to be farking brilliant (and I reckon he will be) if he ever gets called up!

My fear for both would be that they get picked in isolation in the same game plan and defence system. Just changing the 8 or 12 shirt occupants could lead to 'hiding to nothing' problems. 'That didn't work. It must be the new bloke,' type thing!

That is why, in the case of the back row, I'd have none of Curry x 2, Underhill, Earl or Dombrandt in the 6N starting 23. I accept that SB will not agree.

I'd also suggest that if Atkinson starts it should be with neither Lawrence nor Slade.

I think that it is time for overhaul rather than trickle changes. Having said that, I'd start with the coaching crew and as that won't happen, I am not optimistic for any of the first three matches.

I’m assuming CCS at 6 but who would you play at 7?

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:13 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 12:41 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:04 am As with Seb Atkinson, Willis needs to be farking brilliant (and I reckon he will be) if he ever gets called up!

My fear for both would be that they get picked in isolation in the same game plan and defence system. Just changing the 8 or 12 shirt occupants could lead to 'hiding to nothing' problems. 'That didn't work. It must be the new bloke,' type thing!

That is why, in the case of the back row, I'd have none of Curry x 2, Underhill, Earl or Dombrandt in the 6N starting 23. I accept that SB will not agree.

I'd also suggest that if Atkinson starts it should be with neither Lawrence nor Slade.

I think that it is time for overhaul rather than trickle changes. Having said that, I'd start with the coaching crew and as that won't happen, I am not optimistic for any of the first three matches.

I’m assuming CCS at 6 but who would you play at 7?

Jack Willis and bollix to the rules. Failing that, Pollock.

This is getting near JNGF levels.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:43 pm This is getting near JNGF levels.

That's below the belt, sir!

But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:43 pm This is getting near JNGF levels.

Careful.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:35 pm But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

This, this and this.

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:46 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:44 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:11 pm

If I was thinking like that, I'd try Dingwall and Freeman first. If it has to be one change, I'd retain Slade ahead of Lawrence.

One start at 13 this season for Freeman. He had a couple of runs at different points of last season but has otherwise no experience there.

indeed, as per smith m, needs some proper game time in a specialist position

Well yes that's my point, Smith has at least played the position at times at international level so why does Freeman not need to play there regularly but Smith have to.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:35 pm But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

My main point, essentially, is that our back row of late (with all those I'd omit) has been good but not good enough. We either expect them to suddenly improve or we make changes. Why keep the 'same old' if there are others whose ceiling may be higher, taking the team's ceiling with it?

IMO, J Willis is good enough for an exception to be made and Pollock may have the highest ceiling of the lot. They and others (Pearson, Pepper, Hill, Fisilau etc.) should be given genuine consideration rather than sticking to those who constantly come up short against the top sides - it's not just a game or two.

The back row is probably the only unit that we CAN improve markedly - my only reason for keeping suggesting it.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 9:24 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:35 pm But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

My main point, essentially, is that our back row of late (with all those I'd omit) has been good but not good enough. We either expect them to suddenly improve or we make changes. Why keep the 'same old' if there are others whose ceiling may be higher, taking the team's ceiling with it?

IMO, J Willis is good enough for an exception to be made and Pollock may have the highest ceiling of the lot. They and others (Pearson, Pepper, Hill, Fisilau etc.) should be given genuine consideration rather than sticking to those who constantly come up short against the top sides - it's not just a game or two.

The back row is probably the only unit that we CAN improve markedly - my only reason for keeping suggesting it.

I don’t even know how to approach this statement.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 9:24 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:35 pm But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

My main point, essentially, is that our back row of late (with all those I'd omit) has been good but not good enough. We either expect them to suddenly improve or we make changes. Why keep the 'same old' if there are others whose ceiling may be higher, taking the team's ceiling with it?

IMO, J Willis is good enough for an exception to be made and Pollock may have the highest ceiling of the lot. They and others (Pearson, Pepper, Hill, Fisilau etc.) should be given genuine consideration rather than sticking to those who constantly come up short against the top sides - it's not just a game or two.

The back row is probably the only unit that we CAN improve markedly - my only reason for keeping suggesting it.

J Willis isn't so good it's work fucking up the Premiership (even more) so he can be called up. I'm not 100% sure his carrying and jackling that work so we'll in the Toulouse machine would be replicated at international level for starters.

The starting backrow has large been fine as you say the biggest issue is the bench in my opinion. Bringing on Isiekwe and Dombrandt at international level is like pouring sugar into the petrol tank at a pitstop in a Grand Prix. Promoting the other Willis to 8, hopefully having Chessum back to play 8 and then being able to launch CCS and Earl from the bench would considerably improve things.

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:51 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:46 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:44 pm

One start at 13 this season for Freeman. He had a couple of runs at different points of last season but has otherwise no experience there.

indeed, as per smith m, needs some proper game time in a specialist position

Well yes that's my point, Smith has at least played the position at times at international level so why does Freeman not need to play there regularly but Smith have to.

…I give up. What’s the answer?

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:51 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:46 pm

indeed, as per smith m, needs some proper game time in a specialist position

Well yes that's my point, Smith has at least played the position at times at international level so why does Freeman not need to play there regularly but Smith have to.

…I give up. What’s the answer?

I dunno I was just pointing it out and waiting for someone to define the difference.

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:51 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 8:51 pm

Well yes that's my point, Smith has at least played the position at times at international level so why does Freeman not need to play there regularly but Smith have to.

…I give up. What’s the answer?

I dunno I was just pointing it out and waiting for someone to define the difference.

The difference is that 13's a specialist position, whereas any 10 with a bit of pace can slot into full-back because they're positioned in the backfield half the time anyway. Yes, this is a deliberate troll.
Hopefully you see this when you quote me.
Puja

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:50 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 9:24 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 7:35 pm But he’s not available (by choice, whether that matters or not) and I don’t know who you’re trying to convince? We unanimously agree we’d have him in the (wider) squad if he was eligible. He isn’t.

I get it’s a self imposed rule, but it feels like an entirely different conversation to who we would pick in reality.

Throwing a teenager in, especially when you’re already concerned about the overall competence of the setup, doesn’t seem like a great answer.

FWIW (and I don’t say this to diminish Willis’s achievements) Toulouse are so ridiculously good it wouldn’t have surprised me to see any of Underhill, Curry, Curry, Earl, CCS, Hill etc go there and look absolutely mustard.

My main point, essentially, is that our back row of late (with all those I'd omit) has been good but not good enough. We either expect them to suddenly improve or we make changes. Why keep the 'same old' if there are others whose ceiling may be higher, taking the team's ceiling with it?

IMO, J Willis is good enough for an exception to be made and Pollock may have the highest ceiling of the lot. They and others (Pearson, Pepper, Hill, Fisilau etc.) should be given genuine consideration rather than sticking to those who constantly come up short against the top sides - it's not just a game or two.

The back row is probably the only unit that we CAN improve markedly - my only reason for keeping suggesting it.

J Willis isn't so good it's work fucking up the Premiership (even more) so he can be called up. I'm not 100% sure his carrying and jackling that work so we'll in the Toulouse machine would be replicated at international level for starters.

The starting backrow has large been fine as you say the biggest issue is the bench in my opinion. Bringing on Isiekwe and Dombrandt at international level is like pouring sugar into the petrol tank at a pitstop in a Grand Prix. Promoting the other Willis to 8, hopefully having Chessum back to play 8 and then being able to launch CCS and Earl from the bench would considerably improve things.

I assume you mean Chessum at 6. A reasonable compromise and I like your bench option. Would you play Underhill at 7? I think, good as he is, his best will leave us short of a competitive edge v Ireland and France.

We can debate this as much as we like but will SB start Willis at 8? I doubt he will having failed to test him in the AIs. We are back to the usual 'I would not be starting from here' problem. Chessum (or CCS), Underhill and Earl is SB's likely starting trio (perhaps) and, if so, it is not a good enough unit.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:45 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:50 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 9:24 pm

My main point, essentially, is that our back row of late (with all those I'd omit) has been good but not good enough. We either expect them to suddenly improve or we make changes. Why keep the 'same old' if there are others whose ceiling may be higher, taking the team's ceiling with it?

IMO, J Willis is good enough for an exception to be made and Pollock may have the highest ceiling of the lot. They and others (Pearson, Pepper, Hill, Fisilau etc.) should be given genuine consideration rather than sticking to those who constantly come up short against the top sides - it's not just a game or two.

The back row is probably the only unit that we CAN improve markedly - my only reason for keeping suggesting it.

J Willis isn't so good it's work fucking up the Premiership (even more) so he can be called up. I'm not 100% sure his carrying and jackling that work so we'll in the Toulouse machine would be replicated at international level for starters.

The starting backrow has large been fine as you say the biggest issue is the bench in my opinion. Bringing on Isiekwe and Dombrandt at international level is like pouring sugar into the petrol tank at a pitstop in a Grand Prix. Promoting the other Willis to 8, hopefully having Chessum back to play 8 and then being able to launch CCS and Earl from the bench would considerably improve things.

I assume you mean Chessum at 6. A reasonable compromise and I like your bench option. Would you play Underhill at 7? I think, good as he is, his best will leave us short of a competitive edge v Ireland and France.

We can debate this as much as we like but will SB start Willis at 8? I doubt he will having failed to test him in the AIs. We are back to the usual 'I would not be starting from here' problem. Chessum (or CCS), Underhill and Earl is SB's likely starting trio (perhaps) and, if so, it is not a good enough unit.

Yes, I meant 6. Get Willis in at 8. It is probably too out there for Simply Basic but we can but hope.

I'd like Willis to start but think he'll be on the bench, with the logic that Earl has too much credit in the bank. Saying that, Earl has still been fantastic for England for a good chunk of the last 18 months. Who knows what sort of form we'll see?

We saw what Chessum can do at 6 last 6 nations.

Not got the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding Underhill's best not being good enough to challenge Ireland and France. He is absolutely collossal at his best. Pre-RWC I fully admit I thought injuries had got the better of him, but he's firmly first choice at 7 for me right now.

Pollock or Pepper may well surpass him in time, but it's early days for them and there are much more pressing issues to sort out first. Hopefully a Curry brother can provide the necessary competition at 7 until then. If Borthwick thinks Earl can be used at 7 to make room for Willis that may change things, but it would be a very different job for him to what he's been doing.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:44 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:51 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 am
…I give up. What’s the answer?

I dunno I was just pointing it out and waiting for someone to define the difference.

The difference is that 13's a specialist position, whereas any 10 with a bit of pace can slot into full-back because they're positioned in the backfield half the time anyway. Yes, this is a deliberate troll.
Hopefully you see this when you quote me.
Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:44 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:51 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 am
…I give up. What’s the answer?

I dunno I was just pointing it out and waiting for someone to define the difference.

The difference is that 13's a specialist position, whereas any 10 with a bit of pace can slot into full-back because they're positioned in the backfield half the time anyway. Yes, this is a deliberate troll.
Hopefully you see this when you quote me.
Puja

I'd certainly go with that. Not many on here seem to agree mind.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:17 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:44 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:51 am

I dunno I was just pointing it out and waiting for someone to define the difference.

The difference is that 13's a specialist position, whereas any 10 with a bit of pace can slot into full-back because they're positioned in the backfield half the time anyway. Yes, this is a deliberate troll.
Hopefully you see this when you quote me.
Puja

Admit it - I gotcha .

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:00 am I'd like Willis to start but think he'll be on the bench, with the logic that Earl has too much credit in the bank. Saying that, Earl has still been fantastic for England for a good chunk of the last 18 months. Who knows what sort of form we'll see?

I think Earl will actually be a major beneficiary of the changes in the laws around scrums. Having the defending scrum half have to stand back at the tunnel is a game-changer for a swift and powerful number 8 like Earl - it gives room for a proper 8-pick-up without the 9 clinging to him before he's even broken away. Earl's quick enough that he should be able to arc around the 9 and attack the opposition fly-half with a 5 metre run-up to get to top speed and I would be very surprised if that isn't our opening move in our first scrum against Ireland. Conversely, it means that 8-9-11 moves down the blindside are back on - if the defending 9 stands at the tunnel on the openside, then they're opening up a 3-on-2 for a winger to exploit.

Puja

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 6:50 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:43 pm This is getting near JNGF levels.

That's below the belt, sir!

I readily concur

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:42 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:17 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:44 am

The difference is that 13's a specialist position, whereas any 10 with a bit of pace can slot into full-back because they're positioned in the backfield half the time anyway. Yes, this is a deliberate troll.
Hopefully you see this when you quote me.
Puja

Admit it - I gotcha .

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:00 am I'd like Willis to start but think he'll be on the bench, with the logic that Earl has too much credit in the bank. Saying that, Earl has still been fantastic for England for a good chunk of the last 18 months. Who knows what sort of form we'll see?

I think Earl will actually be a major beneficiary of the changes in the laws around scrums. Having the defending scrum half have to stand back at the tunnel is a game-changer for a swift and powerful number 8 like Earl - it gives room for a proper 8-pick-up without the 9 clinging to him before he's even broken away. Earl's quick enough that he should be able to arc around the 9 and attack the opposition fly-half with a 5 metre run-up to get to top speed and I would be very surprised if that isn't our opening move in our first scrum against Ireland. Conversely, it means that 8-9-11 moves down the blindside are back on - if the defending 9 stands at the tunnel on the openside, then they're opening up a 3-on-2 for a winger to exploit.

Puja

In what way? I laughed uproariously at the trolling

On the 9 law, imo its unnecessary

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 5:21 pm On the 9 law, imo its unnecessary

In what sense? It's the most exciting law change in a while to my mind, so I'm interested to know what's making you go Meh.

Puja