RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:From various Eddie quotes it really doesn’t sound like Slade is too much of a doubt.

Given that Eddie himself volunteered the idea that Slade could play at 12 with Marchant at 13 I’d guess that’s what he’s thinking.

It's the most obvious answer, it makes very good sense, and it's what Eddie's said he's thinking about doing. Three solid reasons why Eddie will never do it.

Puja

I’d love to see…

Genge
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Hill
Lawes
Curry
Dombrandt
Young’s
Smith
Daly
Slade
Marchant
Nowell
Steward

Timbo wrote:From various Eddie quotes it really doesn’t sound like Slade is too much of a doubt.

Given that Eddie himself volunteered the idea that Slade could play at 12 with Marchant at 13 I’d guess that’s what he’s thinking.

Classic Eddie misdirection. Nowell at 12, Marchant on the wing you know the drill.

Stom wrote:I’d love to see…

Genge
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Hill
Lawes
Curry
Dombrandt
Young’s
Smith
Daly
Slade
Marchant
Nowell
Steward

Worth a try but I'd be surprised if LCD did not start.

Puja wrote:

On the field, Henry Slade is set to fill Farrell’s role at inside centre outside either Marcus Smith or George Ford, although like others he has been unable to train this week. “We might move Sladey into 12 where he played against South Africa almost to handle that role,” Jones said. “He's got a few bumps and bruises from Montpellier so he won't be on the track until probably Friday.”

Puja

What’s that you say Jonesy

Are no players being released from camp to play in the Prem this week?

Stom wrote:I’d love to see…

Genge
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Hill
Lawes
Curry
Dombrandt
Young’s
Smith
Daly
Slade
Marchant
Nowell
Steward

Good side. My only change would be Malins over Daly or Nowell.

Peej wrote:Are no players being released from camp to play in the Prem this week?

They never are from the pre-6N camp - that's designed to be the big week and a half camp for everybody where it's team-building and everyone being able to put their hand up. It'll be next week that players get released mid-week.

Puja

Ah I see. Fantasy rugby will be interesting this week!

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Ewels will play at lock if Hill isnt fit.

If Lawes doesnt come through his HIA protocol I have a feeling Ludlam will play at 6.

Odds on Isiekwe at least making the matchday 23 have shortened considerably.

Ludlam doesn't even play six for Saints iirc.

However he is the most versatile back row in the squad imo;

(I) A better no.8 by far than Curry

(ii) Equally as effective as Curry at 6 and 7 ( their styles are rather more similar than a lot here might choose to countenance or willingly concede)

(iii) A better and more powerful carrier and a better lineout option than Curry ( but less so than Lawes)

You've outdone yourself there. Fair play.

Mikey Brown wrote:You've outdone yourself there. Fair play.

I am starting to wonder if he lost out on becoming an Olympic figure skater and the name Curry causes sleepless nights

Mikey Brown wrote:You've outdone yourself there. Fair play.

Its a combo of being funny and being the passenger next to Ted Striker in Airplane.

I have no further words

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Ewels will play at lock if Hill isnt fit.

If Lawes doesnt come through his HIA protocol I have a feeling Ludlam will play at 6.

Odds on Isiekwe at least making the matchday 23 have shortened considerably.

Ludlam doesn't even play six for Saints iirc.

However he is the most versatile back row in the squad imo;

(I) A better no.8 by far than Curry

(ii) Equally as effective as Curry at 6 and 7 ( their styles are rather more similar than a lot here might choose to countenance or willingly concede)

(iii) A better and more powerful carrier and a better lineout option than Curry ( but less so than Lawes)

I’m assuming you got all of this from the one game of rugby you’ve actually watched recently?

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ludlam doesn't even play six for Saints iirc.

However he is the most versatile back row in the squad imo;

(I) A better no.8 by far than Curry

(ii) Equally as effective as Curry at 6 and 7 ( their styles are rather more similar than a lot here might choose to countenance or willingly concede)

(iii) A better and more powerful carrier and a better lineout option than Curry ( but less so than Lawes)

I’m assuming you got all of this from the one game of rugby you’ve actually watched recently?

Why not challenge the detail of each specific point to test the validity of why you think there’re wrong - I’m open to changing my opinion by a convincing argument ( You’re right I’ve actually not caught a premiership game on TV so far , I will leave the one liner gags to that clown in no.10 - at least for the moment )

Tough on Smithy

p/d wrote:Tough on Smithy

that will sail over his head. Like a George Ford spiral bomb.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Tough on Smithy

that will sail over his head. Like a George Ford spiral bomb.

On that theme, what's happened to Digby?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Tough on Smithy

that will sail over his head. Like a George Ford spiral bomb.

On that theme, what's happened to Digby?

I think he had enough of Cashead and stopped posting.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

FKAS wrote:
He's switched between lock and 6 this season for Sarries having played pretty much solely at 6 whilst at Saints. He played in the row with Itoje Vs Saints at the start of this month.

Yep. I looked and he’s started 8 games at lock and 4 on the flank so far this season.

Fair enough . Think he's a bit caught between positions tbh- looks more like a 6 than a lock to me.

You like your flankers big I must say

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Yep. I looked and he’s started 8 games at lock and 4 on the flank so far this season.

Fair enough . Think he's a bit caught between positions tbh- looks more like a 6 than a lock to me.

You like your flankers big I must say

We'll he and Chessum are the most like for like options to replace Lawes and they are both a similar big size.

FKAS wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: Fair enough . Think he's a bit caught between positions tbh- looks more like a 6 than a lock to me.

You like your flankers big I must say

We'll he and Chessum are the most like for like options to replace Lawes and they are both a similar big size.

I’m questioning the whole rationale for playing another lock at 6 if Lawes is unavailable. Feel we’d be better off with a faster player (and with better fetching skills ) like Ludlum or Curry there.

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
However he is the most versatile back row in the squad imo;

(I) A better no.8 by far than Curry

(ii) Equally as effective as Curry at 6 and 7 ( their styles are rather more similar than a lot here might choose to countenance or willingly concede)

(iii) A better and more powerful carrier and a better lineout option than Curry ( but less so than Lawes)

I’m assuming you got all of this from the one game of rugby you’ve actually watched recently?

Why not challenge the detail of each specific point to test the validity of why you think there’re wrong - I’m open to changing my opinion by a convincing argument ( You’re right I’ve actually not caught a premiership game on TV so far , I will leave the one liner gags to that clown in no.10 - at least for the moment )

I think the past shows that’s not the case though. I’ve challenged you with facts and you always revert to a subjective opinion.

Point 1, I’ll dismiss this one straight out of the gate on the basis that Ludlam hasn’t started a single Premiership game for Saints at 8. He might have moved there later on in games, but you can’t say he’s a ‘better number 8 by far’ when he rarely (if ever) actually plays at number 8. By the same logic, I happen to think Sam Simmonds would be a better 12 than Owen Farrell, but I won’t claim her he is as I have nothing to back that up.

I wouldn’t care if I never see Curry at 8 again. I don’t think it brings the best out of him at all and I think we have evidence to say he’s not a good 8. Ludlam possibly could be, but until it’s a fair, evidence-based comparison, I don’t think you can say conclusively he’s ‘better by far’.

Point 2 and point 3 kind of merge into one. I won’t argue that Curry and Ludlam have similar attributes, but to describe Ludlam as ‘equally effective’ is somewhat generous and suggests that your knowledge of their actual playing styles is lacking any depth.

They can both cover 6 and 7 and are a similar size, but they’re quite different players who are used very differently at club level.

This is where point 3 comes in … statistically speaking, Ludlam makes more metres than Curry and takes more lineout ball. I’m sure you will argue that this makes your point correct. However, stats can be misleading as while they might be wearing the same number, they’re simply not doing the same job for their team.

Curry is a defensive animal. Sale mostly use him as a defensive leader and allow him to be a breakdown menace. He isn’t typically used as a lineout option and doesn’t carry that much either. Not because he isn’t decent in those aspects of the game, but because Sale have de Jager and the du Preez twins who are simply better at them.

Saints use Ludlam in a bit more of an attacking role. He is used quite a lot as a carrier but often that’s out wide where metres are easier to come by. He does jump in the lineout but so far this season he’s averaging 1 take per game. Hardly a primary jumper.

If they were used in the same role with the same players around them, it might be an interesting comparison, but they’re not … you’re just saying they’re the same type of player because that suits your argument.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Yep. I looked and he’s started 8 games at lock and 4 on the flank so far this season.

Fair enough . Think he's a bit caught between positions tbh- looks more like a 6 than a lock to me.

You like your flankers big I must say

Its not me who is obsessed by size old boy.