RugbyRebels

Why would 3 months change anything though? That's my issue.

Mikey Brown wrote:Why would 3 months change anything though? That's my issue.

Fair point. It's hard to just write him off without any proviso, I suppose. Of course, had there been a really good alternative he already would have been, presumably.

Danno wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone know what the Tuilagi situation is? My head says we should just forget about him entirely at this point, but it would be hard to resist playing him if he is available.

Even then I'd suggest only ever benching him. He pulled out at the 11hour, so we presumably trained around him starting, which would have wasted far more of that training than planning on getting him on at 60mins. No chance of him breaking 7mins in and if he breaks at 67mins then we'd only have to ride out the last 15.

The issue with having a dodgily fit player on the bench is if he has to come on early, of course......

Oakboy wrote:

Danno wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone know what the Tuilagi situation is? My head says we should just forget about him entirely at this point, but it would be hard to resist playing him if he is available.

Even then I'd suggest only ever benching him. He pulled out at the 11hour, so we presumably trained around him starting, which would have wasted far more of that training than planning on getting him on at 60mins. No chance of him breaking 7mins in and if he breaks at 67mins then we'd only have to ride out the last 15.

Quite. Building an approach around him smacks a bit of desperation anyway, after only one club game back from yet another injury. It would be simple enough to have him as a bench option and give him a start in the future if ever he goes, say, three months injury-free (if that ever happens).

Nowell has the same issue tbh, but then again his presence isn't so fulcral.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Danno wrote:
Even then I'd suggest only ever benching him. He pulled out at the 11hour, so we presumably trained around him starting, which would have wasted far more of that training than planning on getting him on at 60mins. No chance of him breaking 7mins in and if he breaks at 67mins then we'd only have to ride out the last 15.

Quite. Building an approach around him smacks a bit of desperation anyway, after only one club game back from yet another injury. It would be simple enough to have him as a bench option and give him a start in the future if ever he goes, say, three months injury-free (if that ever happens).

Nowell has the same issue tbh, but then again his presence isn't so fulcral.

Yes, in a perfect world where everybody was fully fit and on top form permanently, Nowell would not start anyway, would he? Mind you, Watson, May, Coka etc. aren't exactly break-proof. Let's face it, even dear Owen has succumbed.

As we've discussed before, Tuilagi is unique in that he changes everything - is fulcral a proper word? Nice invention, if not.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Quite. Building an approach around him smacks a bit of desperation anyway, after only one club game back from yet another injury. It would be simple enough to have him as a bench option and give him a start in the future if ever he goes, say, three months injury-free (if that ever happens).

Nowell has the same issue tbh, but then again his presence isn't so fulcral.

Yes, in a perfect world where everybody was fully fit and on top form permanently, Nowell would not start anyway, would he? Mind you, Watson, May, Coka etc. aren't exactly break-proof. Let's face it, even dear Owen has succumbed.

As we've discussed before, Tuilagi is unique in that he changes everything - is fulcral a proper word? Nice invention, if not.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, not sure and thanks .

I wouldn’t have Marchant or Daly anywhere near 13 shirt. Nor Slade at 12

p/d wrote:I wouldn’t have Marchant or Daly anywhere near 13 shirt. Nor Slade at 12

.......begs the question.....

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:I wouldn’t have Marchant or Daly anywhere near 13 shirt. Nor Slade at 12

.......begs the question.....

Slade 13
I’d be drafting Kelly in to fight it out with Marchant for 12

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:I wouldn’t have Marchant or Daly anywhere near 13 shirt. Nor Slade at 12

.......begs the question.....

Slade 13
I’d be drafting Kelly in to fight it out with Marchant for 12

Don't think Marchant has ever played 12 tbh.

After Saturday, I'm more worried about midfield defence than attack; and the latter is a big worry.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: .......begs the question.....

Slade 13
I’d be drafting Kelly in to fight it out with Marchant for 12

Don't think Marchant has ever played 12 tbh.

After Saturday, I'm more worried about midfield defence than attack; and the latter is a big worry.

Agree. With Atkinson clearly not deemed ‘good enough’ and Kelly not considered the options look dire.

I am really far from comfortable with Slade at 12, his defence is built around playing 13 (for club and country) and in attack he looks ‘squashed out’ at 12. Plenty of weaving from him and Daly but nought penetration.

Just see Farrell waltzing back in if Jones sticks with putting a plaster on a gaping wound.

Hell, I would get Brad out of retirement

Imagine how good an 11 Daly would be by now if….

He stayed at Wasps?

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone know what the Tuilagi situation is?

Jones is quoted yesterday as saying they’re looking at a 10 day recovery time and it was touch-and-go as to whether he’d make it for Ireland.

Jones should certainly be starting Manu against Ireland. No question.

p/d wrote:He stayed at Wasps?

It starts with a ‘w’ but rhymes with ringer.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote: Slade 13
I’d be drafting Kelly in to fight it out with Marchant for 12

Don't think Marchant has ever played 12 tbh.

After Saturday, I'm more worried about midfield defence than attack; and the latter is a big worry.

Agree. With Atkinson clearly not deemed ‘good enough’ and Kelly not considered the options look dire.

I am really far from comfortable with Slade at 12, his defence is built around playing 13 (for club and country) and in attack he looks ‘squashed out’ at 12. Plenty of weaving from him and Daly but nought penetration.

Just see Farrell waltzing back in if Jones sticks with putting a plaster on a gaping wound.

Hell, I would get Brad out of retirement

But your solution with Slade looking out of position in defence and attack at 12 is to put another 13 in Marchant in there, and one doesn't even have the advantage of having played there (or anything but 13 or wing) before?

Kelly is a fashionable answer and is in good form, but he's not ready for England yet. Only became a Leicester 1st XV regular this season and is learning game by game. It'd be a murder to put him in against the Irish and French.

Note that I'm not in favour of Slade, just not seeing many viable other options.

Puja

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: Don't think Marchant has ever played 12 tbh.

After Saturday, I'm more worried about midfield defence than attack; and the latter is a big worry.

Agree. With Atkinson clearly not deemed ‘good enough’ and Kelly not considered the options look dire.

I am really far from comfortable with Slade at 12, his defence is built around playing 13 (for club and country) and in attack he looks ‘squashed out’ at 12. Plenty of weaving from him and Daly but nought penetration.

Just see Farrell waltzing back in if Jones sticks with putting a plaster on a gaping wound.

Hell, I would get Brad out of retirement

But your solution with Slade looking out of position in defence and attack at 12 is to put another 13 in Marchant in there, and one doesn't even have the advantage of having played there

Puja

Based on the options. Yes

Spiffy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Anyone know what the Tuilagi situation is?

Jones is quoted yesterday as saying they’re looking at a 10 day recovery time and it was touch-and-go as to whether he’d make it for Ireland.

Jones should certainly be starting Manu against Ireland. No question.

Quiet you

Fulcral is a word, fallen out of widespread use since the 19th century. However in Portuguese it is still used and means central.
(Source: Google)

Probably too early for either Kelly or Ojomoh. Wouldnt mind seeing one or both at least in the squad with a view to them going on tour down to Australia in the summer.
For now, we're kinda stuck. Slade has to play at 12, then its the roulette wheel to see if Daly of Marchant gets the call to play the other centre. Dont think we'll see the back 3 change. Which leaves the half backs. Smith will play and then its whether Jones thinks Randall deserves another start. I think he does.

Danno wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Jones is quoted yesterday as saying they’re looking at a 10 day recovery time and it was touch-and-go as to whether he’d make it for Ireland.

Jones should certainly be starting Manu against Ireland. No question.

Quiet you

Fulcral is a word, fallen out of widespread use since the 19th century. However in Portuguese it is still used and means central.
(Source: Google)

Could Youngs be termed fulcral awful?

Spiffy wrote:

Danno wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Jones should certainly be starting Manu against Ireland. No question.

Quiet you

Fulcral is a word, fallen out of widespread use since the 19th century. However in Portuguese it is still used and means central.
(Source: Google)

Could Youngs be termed fucral awful?

Fulcrally essential to Ireland

Fairly dispiriting hearing Jones wanging on about our attack having no ceiling as its unpredictable. As if there's something revolutionary about chucking shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

There may be no ceiling but on the evidence of Saturday we're into the sub-basement establishing how low it's floor is.

32nd Man wrote:Fairly dispiriting hearing Jones wanging on about our attack having no ceiling as its unpredictable. As if there's something revolutionary about chucking shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

There may be no ceiling but on the evidence of Saturday we're into the sub-basement establishing how low it's floor is.

That is an uncharitable interpretation of his comments to say the least.

twitchy wrote:

32nd Man wrote:Fairly dispiriting hearing Jones wanging on about our attack having no ceiling as its unpredictable. As if there's something revolutionary about chucking shit at a wall and seeing what sticks.

There may be no ceiling but on the evidence of Saturday we're into the sub-basement establishing how low it's floor is.

That is an uncharitable interpretation of his comments to say the least.

What I find odd is Jones's contention that our attack is well prepared but not restricted by structure (my words). The players still look afraid to go off-plan even if they are free to do so. Natural handlers like Smith and Slade could do hell of a lot more IF the other players were running good lines and taking a risk or two.

Maybe (not serious) they should call up Ashton. At least he used to arrive on the FH's shoulder at the right time, in the right place to exploit a gap occasionally.

I thought you meant Brian.