RugbyRebels

Yep. It’s like we’re reliving the Lancaster regime.

padprop wrote:There's some irony in the fact that we have two playmakers at centre and an out and out seven and are worse than we have ever been.

Careful what you wish for.

Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

Were there any improvements from the 1st Test? That's what we should be thinking about. Maybe, Daly and Brown interchanged with relative success. Launchbury was solid, enabling Itoje to play better. Then, er . . . .

The head coach's job WAS to bring about improvement - if he knew how.

Ben Youngs is in for a bollocking because Eddie’s just taken a difficult interview because of it.

£10 for whoever names the 25 missing players.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

padprop wrote:There's some irony in the fact that we have two playmakers at centre and an out and out seven and are worse than we have ever been.

Careful what you wish for.

I'm moving towards the idea that Jones briefly got everybody overperforming and now that initial push and confidence have disappeared we're once again back with a bunch of players that are for the most part average at best at this level.

I would suggest that his masterstroke was having a bench that could actually make an impact and starting with forwards who were more solid in the set piece, as opposed to those that do highlight reel stuff for 20 minutes then fade away both around the park and at the scrum.

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:There's some irony in the fact that we have two playmakers at centre and an out and out seven and are worse than we have ever been.

Careful what you wish for.

Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Woodward wants Cips - Farrell - Daly. Which leaves a back three of Earle - Solomona - Brown.

How does Farrell keep giving average performance after average performance and just get no criticism?

.....Greenwood has just called him a Trojan. F**k me. Where is the vodka.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:There's some irony in the fact that we have two playmakers at centre and an out and out seven and are worse than we have ever been.

Careful what you wish for.

Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Not that I’ve seen. Most have asked for a balance. Even if they did, two brick walls wasn’t anymore successful.

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Which of the non-Lions are playing well?

Curry.

But then it can't be easy for guys like Williams and Slade playing next to guys who are clearly shot at.

He’s been ok. Lost a few too many breakdowns, but then he’s 19 and has three caps so he gets plenty of leeway. My point is that the problems go beyond Lions players.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying they were a highly predictable set of problems, and taking them came with no real upside.

Mellsblue wrote:Woodward wants Cips - Farrell - Daly. Which leaves a back three of Earle - Solomona - Brown.

How does Farrell keep giving average performance after average performance and just get no criticism?

.....Greenwood has just called him a Trojan. F**k me. Where is the vodka.

Trojan ... is that a reference to Johnny?

Mellsblue wrote:Woodward wants Cips - Farrell - Daly. Which leaves a back three of Earle - Solomona - Brown.

How does Farrell keep giving average performance after average performance and just get no criticism?

.....Greenwood has just called him a Trojan. F**k me. Where is the vodka.

That's ridiculous. He was very lucky not to be carded by the ref for his petulance. He offered nothing as captain at all. And he still can't pass a ball while running.

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Not that I’ve seen. Most have asked for a balance. Even if they did, two brick walls wasn’t anymore successful.

It was more a statement of how people have asked for playmakers in the centres, we now have two, and in my opinion look less effective than actually having one guy that can carry.

The fact we were trying to crash a 6'2" 13 stone guy up throughout the game would help support my argument.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:
15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Not that I’ve seen. Most have asked for a balance. Even if they did, two brick walls wasn’t anymore successful.

It was more a statement of how people have asked for playmakers in the centres, we now have two, and in my opinion look less effective than actually having one guy that can carry.

The fact we were trying to crash a 6'2" 13 stone guy up throughout the game would help support my argument.

Farrell is not an effective playmaker. He seems to be worshiped because he has aggressive defense and kick goals.

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:
Curry.

But then it can't be easy for guys like Williams and Slade playing next to guys who are clearly shot at.

He’s been ok. Lost a few too many breakdowns, but then he’s 19 and has three caps so he gets plenty of leeway. My point is that the problems go beyond Lions players.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying they were a highly predictable set of problems, and taking them came with no real upside.

I’d have rested some of them but it’s a long way down the list of problems. It’s even further down you list of problems when you have to work out who to replace them with.
Singleton on the bench? Isiekwe and Hill for the second row in the first test? Solomona to start? etc etc

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:There's some irony in the fact that we have two playmakers at centre and an out and out seven and are worse than we have ever been.

Careful what you wish for.

Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Years of centres like Noon, Barritt, Hape, old Tindall getting consistently picked can make you want something a bit more exciting.

Mellsblue wrote:
.....Greenwood has just called him a Trojan. F**k me. Where is the vodka.

Even if he wasn't great, calling him a massive condom seems a bit harsh.

Insouciant wrote:

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Who asked for two playmakers in the centres?

15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Years of centres like Noon, Barritt, Hape, old Tindall getting consistently picked can make you want something a bit more exciting.

Im with you, but surely watching the last two games you must admit we have gone too far the other way.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:
15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Not that I’ve seen. Most have asked for a balance. Even if they did, two brick walls wasn’t anymore successful.

It was more a statement of how people have asked for playmakers in the centres, we now have two, and in my opinion look less effective than actually having one guy that can carry.

The fact we were trying to crash a 6'2" 13 stone guy up throughout the game would help support my argument.

Most (sensible) people have asked for a playmaker in the centre.
Your initial point was about having two playmakers. Which, on here, is not what anybody has asked for. You can’t defend a selection of two bosh options by saying two playmakers isn’t the answer, as neither option is the answer.
If you think picking bish and bosh at 12 and 13 is the answer then all you need to do is look back at every other time we’ve tried it.

padprop wrote:

Insouciant wrote:

padprop wrote:
15 years of fans complaining about brick walls in the centres did

Years of centres like Noon, Barritt, Hape, old Tindall getting consistently picked can make you want something a bit more exciting.

Im with you, but surely watching the last two games you must admit we have gone too far the other way.

Yep, we have. But nobody, that I know, wished for it, as you suggested.

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:

Insouciant wrote:
Years of centres like Noon, Barritt, Hape, old Tindall getting consistently picked can make you want something a bit more exciting.

Im with you, but surely watching the last two games you must admit we have gone too far the other way.

Yep, we have. But nobody, that I know, wished for it, as you suggested.

Well you wouldn't have to look very far back for people asking for Slade at 13, who is an inconsistent fly half who does a very very good impression of playing 13, but as today and last week shows, it doesn't work.

I dont think the balance is right at centre but right now i wouldnt regard this as one of our major issues.

There just seems to be a lack of clear thinking in so much of what we do. We lose shape too easily, get flustered, concede easy yards and give away possession far too easily. Some of our play is just so naive, lacking patience with mistake compounding mistake.

Its plainly not just a personnel issue: there is something fundamentally askew in how we are being selected and set up to play.

Pretty much ... an international coach is employed to get the best out of a group of players. I simply don’t think Eddie is doing that.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:
Im with you, but surely watching the last two games you must admit we have gone too far the other way.

Yep, we have. But nobody, that I know, wished for it, as you suggested.

Well you wouldn't have to look very far back for people asking for Slade at 13, who is an inconsistent fly half who does a very very good impression of playing 13, but as today and last week shows, it doesn't work.

True but then most of those wouldn’t want Farrell at 12.

fivepointer wrote:I dont think the balance is right at centre but right now i wouldnt regard this as one of our major issues.

There just seems to be a lack of clear thinking in so much of what we do. We lose shape too easily, get flustered, concede easy yards and give away possession far too easily. Some of our play is just so naive, lacking patience with mistake compounding mistake.

Its plainly not just a personnel issue: there is something fundamentally askew in how we are being selected and set up to play.

I would. You can send any runner who is even approaching being effective down our 10, 12 and 13 and make a good amount of metres. Coupling that with our back three that arent great under the high ball in recent times and its not a great recipe.

+ the forwards are braindead at the moment

Scrumhead wrote:Pretty much ... an international coach is employed to get the best out of a group of players. I simply don’t think Eddie is doing that.

Spot on.