RugbyRebels

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:58 am**

I think Billy has been lacklustre all competition to be honest

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:24 am**

Yep. I know this will be controversial, but I thought we looked better with Wilson at 8 in the AIs.

I know that’s one less carrier in theory at least, but Billy’s carrying hasn’t really impressed this 6N. Admittedly, I haven’t looked at the stats, but I don’t recall Billy making any major line breaks?

It’s also worth pointing out that we had Moon at loosehead for the majority of the time in the AIs and no Tuilagi either, so I’d argue we were actually down 3 primary carriers.

That leads me to the conclusion that if we have Mako and Tuilagi on the field (as well as potentially Cokanasiga) as our main carrying threats, we might be better off with Wilson at 8 and the extra work and physicality of another 6 being on the pitch.

Clearly if Billy gets back to his best, he’s one of the first names on the teamshseet, but right now, he’s a long way from that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:29 am**

Not controversial. Billy does look off at the moment. Really rate Wilson, and him alongside Underhill and Curry would make for a tidy back row.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:38 am**

Controversial in the sense that most would regard Billy as an automatic starter if/when fit.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:39 am**

Completely agree with both. Hopefully Billy does get back to somewhere near his best form before the WC, but if he's still playing like he has in this competition then I would definitely prefer to see Wilson at 8.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:45 am**

Just don't advocate Shields anywhere near the 23. A knackered Billy is still three times the player he is.

Then, there is Hughes. I've rated him when others have not but I just can't understand using him at international level at lock when the likes of Isiekwe are available. It's no different to using Lawes or Itoje at 6. Hughes is a back-up 8 or out of the squad, IMO. I'd be happy to have Wilson above Hughes in the No 8 rankings but I rate him too highly at 6 to want to mess him about except in an emergency. Having said that, if we get a regular unit of Underhill, Curry and Wilson to perform effectively, why not? I'm doubtful over the time left to trial it though.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:52 am**

Personally I'd have Willis in the mix if he can prove his fitness. I know time isn't on his side given how Eddie likes players to have spent 2 or 3 years in the squad before getting a cap but there could be a lot of backrow injuries between now and the WC. I used to rate Hughes but I've become increasingly frustrated with him as time's gone on. Willis' time out could actually prove to be ideal timing in terms of freshness.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:55 am**

Mikey Brown wrote:

This is actually worse each time I look. If that was an attempt at a charge down then he’s an idiot, if that was a tackle before the ball had been kicked it still would have been a shoulder charge, with no arms, and catches him in the face.

I’m not a massive fan of Farrell’s technique of lying on the floor ‘injured’ until he knows it’s play-on either.

I can't claim to have the knowledge of a lot of you on here but to me the only decision to make there is red or possibly yellow. Again. He actually adjusts his line at the last minute from an attempted charge down to "oh fuck I'm gonna get a boot in the face, I'd better move away from the boot". Understandable and he was prob exhausted from racing up the field from his own kick etc etc but it's still nailed on reckless.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:00 pm**

Beasties wrote:Personally I'd have Willis in the mix if he can prove his fitness. I know time isn't on his side given how Eddie likes players to have spent 2 or 3 years in the squad before getting a cap but there could be a lot of backrow injuries between now and the WC. I used to rate Hughes but I've become increasingly frustrated with him as time's gone on. Willis' time out could actually prove to be ideal timing in terms of freshness.

So would I if we had more time. IMO Willis has a lot of similar qualities to Wilson but is probably better over the ball. He’s already a top player and will only get better.

I think he and Hill are the future at 6. The problem is, there’s literally no time to try that. I know we have the Barbarians game and the warm-ups, but I think we should be finalising the squad not taking a last gamble on a debutant.

Underhill at 6 with Curry at 7 and Wilson at 8 is well worth a try though.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:07 pm**

Bit harsh on Billy, who has been comfortably our primary yard maker up front all 6N, in every game. I do question leaving him on for 80, given his recent lack of conditioning. He makes hard yards, good yards, and handles well, and his defence has been fine generally. Suspect this is a case, as with when Itoje slightly dropped off, and with Launchbury, some are expecting more than we get....but its still better than the other options, Wilson went well, but is an entirely different kind of player- and I really like him at 6. We also know that Billy at his best is a world class 8.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:09 pm**

Oakboy wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Oakboy wrote:It was not ONLY the performances of our 9 and 10 but when we started to get things wrong in the 2nd half and Scotland gained momentum, solid decision-making had to be the best way of turning things back around. Deny Scotland the ball had to be the No 1 priority. Keep it tight and multi-phase our way back into the game.

Top of the no-no list should have been 'don't kick possession away'. What did Youngs do?

Behind that but not far, was 'don't take risks such as getting charged down or throw floaty passes that might be intercepted '. What did Farrell do?

There were loads of other lesser factors that contributed but when the two game-managers so evidently lose the plot the other thirteen players can be forgiven for being shell-shocked. That one of the two is also the captain and that the prat in the stands waited too long to change things even if he knew how must have been even more disheartening.

Overall, we are a mess. The victory in Dublin was an indication of our potential. Everything else has been poor RWC preparation. Jones likes to portray himself as the ultimate professional but yesterday was just amateur.
Yep, though equally worrying to me is that no one else on the park seems able to challenge the status quo; I do also think we have some fundamental defensive issues - some dreadful positioning and bad tackling compounding this.

I do also wonder about our fitness; blown up twice at about 50 mins. Being tired leads to mental errors.
On that last point, I thought Kruis and Billy faded badly. Kruis had a better 6N than I thought possible but earlier on did someone not say he had been told to burn himself out in 60 in one of the games? Billy's tiredness has seen him cough up the ball in contact before now. I am criticising neither overall but I do wonder if planning for their departure on 60 might be sensible.

Disagree on Kruis, I thought he kept going well, as indicated by his tackle count. Speaking of stats, Faz's are hideous

.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:22 pm**

Banquo wrote: Disagree on Kruis, I thought he kept going well, as indicated by his tackle count. Speaking of stats, Faz's are hideous .

Gave away as many penalities as he made tackles. Missed twice as many.
Carried once for 0m

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:23 pm**

Scrumhead wrote:Underhill at 6 with Curry at 7 and Wilson at 8 is well worth a try though.

I wouldn't mind seeing that for at least part of one of the warm up games against the Welsh pre world cup even if just to keep Billy wrapped in cotton wool so that he makes the tournament. If he got injured, Hughes or Shields look likely to replace him.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:26 pm**

Banquo wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
Banquo wrote:Disagree on Kruis, I thought he kept going well, as indicated by his tackle count. Speaking of stats, Faz's are hideous .

Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:27 pm**

Which Tyler wrote:
Banquo wrote: Disagree on Kruis, I thought he kept going well, as indicated by his tackle count. Speaking of stats, Faz's are hideous .
Gave away as many penalities as he made tackles. Missed twice as many.
Carried once for 0m

and 4 turnovers, inc an interception try and a chargedown try. I was also underwhelmed with his positioning and passing standing still 'in the pocket'. It was lazy tbh.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:29 pm**

Insouciant wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.

On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly'saren't pretty either.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:35 pm**

Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.
On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly'saren't pretty either.

Isn't defence his principal plus point?
Certainly doesn't look it compared to... the other 3 FHs in that match

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:43 pm**

Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.
On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly's aren't pretty either.

The backs did make a great deal of metres with Tuilagi making the least, however his presence will draw defenders so it's not a negative on him at all. I'm guessing much of the positive stats were all built up in the first 30 minutes.

The stats are pretty ugly across the board. A ton of turnovers conceded - fewer players didn't concede at least one turnover than did. That is pretty poor and quite a lot concede two.

Elliot Daly lost more turnovers than he made tackles but still missed more tackles anyway. Fazlet did the same. Youngs concede two turnovers and made no tackles at all (none missed either..). Wow, that's shocking.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:44 pm**

Which Tyler wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.
On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly'saren't pretty either.
Isn't defence his principal plus point?
Certainly Lt doesn't look it compared to... the other 3 FHs in that match

I've always said he's more a liability in primary defence than an asset- his scrambling sometimes offsets that, but not yesterday. I'd say that in dominant sides, his ability to keep the pressure up is his principal plus point. I just don't rate him....have I mentioned that before.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:48 pm**

Insouciant wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
Most, if not all, of the other backs missed more tackles than Faz according to ESPN. A few missed 3 (I think May, Daly and Tuilagi). Faz only missed one, however he did concede 4 turnovers so yeah.. pretty bad.
On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly's aren't pretty either.
The backs did make a great deal of metres with Tuilagi making the least, however his presence will draw defenders so it's not a negative on him at all. I'm guessing much of the positive stats were all built up in the first 30 minutes.

The stats are pretty ugly across the board. A ton of turnovers conceded - fewer players didn't concede at least one turnover than did. That is pretty poor and quite a lot concede two.

Elliot Daly lost more turnovers than he made tackles but still missed more tackles anyway. Fazlet did the same. Youngs concede two turnovers and made no tackles at all (none missed either..). Wow, that's shocking.

As I said yesterday, there were a load of poor performances, esp in defence. However, no-one can be surprised at Nowell and Slade struggling a bit- they have before. What's shocking is how little covering work Faz was seemingly doing, and how poor he was after 30 mins; Youngs has not been doing much in defence for too long now. Ford was only on for a few minutes yet attempted and made more tackles than Faz, and made more yards.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:54 pm**

Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
Banquo wrote: On ESPN just now he made one and missed two; whats shocking about that is how few tackles he even attempted. Nowell's and Daly's aren't pretty either.
The backs did make a great deal of metres with Tuilagi making the least, however his presence will draw defenders so it's not a negative on him at all. I'm guessing much of the positive stats were all built up in the first 30 minutes.

The stats are pretty ugly across the board. A ton of turnovers conceded - fewer players didn't concede at least one turnover than did. That is pretty poor and quite a lot concede two.

Elliot Daly lost more turnovers than he made tackles but still missed more tackles anyway. Fazlet did the same. Youngs concede two turnovers and made no tackles at all (none missed either..). Wow, that's shocking.
As I said yesterday, there were a load of poor performances, esp in defence. However, no-one can be surprised at Nowell and Slade struggling a bit- they have before. What's shocking is how little covering work Faz was seemingly doing, and how poor he was after 30 mins; Youngs has not been doing much in defence for too long now. Ford was only on for a few minutes yet attempted and made more tackles than Faz, and made more yards.

And bagged one less point

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:58 pm**

p/d wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Insouciant wrote:
The backs did make a great deal of metres with Tuilagi making the least, however his presence will draw defenders so it's not a negative on him at all. I'm guessing much of the positive stats were all built up in the first 30 minutes.

The stats are pretty ugly across the board. A ton of turnovers conceded - fewer players didn't concede at least one turnover than did. That is pretty poor and quite a lot concede two.

Elliot Daly lost more turnovers than he made tackles but still missed more tackles anyway. Fazlet did the same. Youngs concede two turnovers and made no tackles at all (none missed either..). Wow, that's shocking.
As I said yesterday, there were a load of poor performances, esp in defence. However, no-one can be surprised at Nowell and Slade struggling a bit- they have before. What's shocking is how little covering work Faz was seemingly doing, and how poor he was after 30 mins; Youngs has not been doing much in defence for too long now. Ford was only on for a few minutes yet attempted and made more tackles than Faz, and made more yards.
And bagged one less point

Sadly not.

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:03 pm**

Faz 11, Ford 10 wasn’t it?

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:16 pm**

p/d wrote:Faz 11, Ford 10 wasn’t it?

I had faz 11, Ford 7?

Posted: **Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:46 pm**

Banquo wrote:Bit harsh on Billy, who has been comfortably our primary yard maker up front all 6N, in every game. I do question leaving him on for 80, given his recent lack of conditioning. He makes hard yards, good yards, and handles well, and his defence has been fine generally. Suspect this is a case, as with when Itoje slightly dropped off, and with Launchbury, some are expecting more than we get....but its still better than the other options, Wilson went well, but is an entirely different kind of player- and I really like him at 6. We also know that Billy at his best is a world class 8.

Yeah, I’m not worried about Billy as long as he can stay fit.

If he’s not around at any point though I’m about done with Hughes. We have a number of exciting young back row that I would like to see given a chance.

RugbyRebels

Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread

Re: Eng vs. Sco - Match thread