RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:WTF has Robshaw done to his hair. It has ruined an otherwise top notch sartorial game.

Feck Robshaw. Greenwood looks more and more like the old boy off Steptoe

You mean....Steptoe

That's the bugger!!!

Quinnell’s point about Wales’ beastings perhaps impacting on their performance......I wonder if that had a bearing on Joseph looking a bit below his usual pace. He was the only Eng player not in the original XXIII that started and may have been on a harsher training regime this week.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:WTF has Robshaw done to his hair. It has ruined an otherwise top notch sartorial game.

Feck Robshaw. Greenwood looks more and more like the old boy off Steptoe

You mean....Steptoe

This made me lol.

Mellsblue wrote:Quinnell’s point about Wales’ beastings perhaps impacting on their performance......I wonder if that had a bearing on Joseph looking a bit below his usual pace. He was the only Eng player not in the original XXIII that started and may have been on a harsher training regime this week.

He was cramping after about an hour. Class act tho

Banquo wrote:Fair play to Robshaw, very magnanimous

Missed that. Would you enlighten me, please.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Quinnell’s point about Wales’ beastings perhaps impacting on their performance......I wonder if that had a bearing on Joseph looking a bit below his usual pace. He was the only Eng player not in the original XXIII that started and may have been on a harsher training regime this week.

He was cramping after about an hour. Class act tho

Absolutely. He and Watson are top drawer.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Fair play to Robshaw, very magnanimous

Missed that. Would you enlighten me, please.

He said how well the backrow had done when Curry was on

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Fair play to Robshaw, very magnanimous

Missed that. Would you enlighten me, please.

He said how well the backrow had done when Curry was on

Class act. Terrible hairdresser.

Initial thoughts:

England great in attack, leaky in places in defence.

Wales looked a bit ‘undercooked’

Ludlum had an outstanding debut and I thought worked really nicely in tandem with Curry and then with Lawes.

Lawes had his best game at 6 to date.

Joseph, Ford, Heinz, Cockerseigne and Launchberry all had great games.

Is Tuillagi best used as a starter or an impact player - what an impact!

Ford can launch backs in a way seldom shown by Farrell.

Daly’s a highly skilled footballer but still looks uncomfortable at fullback - Brown might have come into his own in that type of game?

So, who from today is going to miss out on selection from the 31?

One of Lawes, Launchbury or Ewels presumably. I thought Lauunchbury, in terms of right place, right time, right decision, was one of our best players. Surely, Lawes will go so Ewels?

Will we take four centres? If so which one misses out? If not, which two? Marchant getting a minute and a half looks condemned.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote: Manu at 12? I thought you were a 2nd 5/8ths man. I'd always have him there tbh these days.

I favour it, but I'm a bigger fan of playing your best options.

My "If I were Eddie" would have had Slade playing 12 for Exeter, Manu switching between 12 and 13 and starting any two of those three with the third on the bench. Selection based on form and opponent

Well I never.

To be fair, I've also had my moments of thinking that Slade was never going to realise his potential. Mostly though because I felt Baxter was playing him out of position

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: I favour it, but I'm a bigger fan of playing your best options.

My "If I were Eddie" would have had Slade playing 12 for Exeter, Manu switching between 12 and 13 and starting any two of those three with the third on the bench. Selection based on form and opponent

Well I never.

To be fair, I've also had my moments of thinking that Slade was never going to realise his potential. Mostly though because I felt Baxter was playing him out of position

Agreed a trick has been missed on Slade.

Mellsblue wrote:Lawes’s lid is, erm, interesting.

Yes, I’m 90% convinced there’s some sort of troupe going on there - must make him 6’9” tip to toe

A lot of pluses for us today.
First off a good win against a strong side isnt to be sniffed at. We were good value for the win and played some good rugby at times. A little bit better support on breaks and we could easily have scored a couple more tries.
The return of Watson and Joseph are big positives, as were the performances of Ludlam and Ewels up front.
Billy was tremendous, the side were astutely led by Ford and the bench made a strong contribution.

fivepointer wrote: Billy was tremendous

For me this game showed the pros and cons of Billy’s style, fantastic on the charge and offloads, but lacking mobility and sharpness in close quarters defence (though he was not unique in this) .

Will we take three SHs or only two?

Jones took only two SHs when HC of Oz and Japan.

Which does seem to me utterly bananas. If a centre gets injured, some of our back three can play passable centre, as can one of our fly-halves. If a lock goes down, it's possible to shove a back row in there and vice versa. Even fly-half we have Slade who has played there regularly and Watson could possibly cover full-back if we were absolutely desperate. But at scrum-half, if Youngs stubs a toe, then we have George Ford covering, who I believe has never played there professionally and whose only qualification is being a short-arse. Granted, we wouldn't bring him on there out of choice, but imagine the game against France where Heinz gets concussed in the first minute and we're left with Ford/Farrell at 9/10!

Seems like a completely unnecessary risk to me, but it's clearly the one that we're choosing to take.

Puja

Puja wrote:Which does seem to me utterly bananas. If a centre gets injured, some of our back three can play passable centre, as can one of our fly-halves. If a lock goes down, it's possible to shove a back row in there and vice versa. Even fly-half we have Slade who has played there regularly and Watson could possibly cover full-back if we were absolutely desperate. But at scrum-half, if Youngs stubs a toe, then we have George Ford covering, who I believe has never played there professionally and whose only qualification is being a short-arse. Granted, we wouldn't bring him on there out of choice, but imagine the game against France where Heinz gets concussed in the first minute and we're left with Ford/Farrell at 9/10!

Seems like a completely unnecessary risk to me, but it's clearly the one that we're choosing to take.

Puja

Watson is possibly the best FB in the squad, and the best back three - Watson (FB) May and Daly (wings.)

Spiffy wrote:

Puja wrote:Which does seem to me utterly bananas. If a centre gets injured, some of our back three can play passable centre, as can one of our fly-halves. If a lock goes down, it's possible to shove a back row in there and vice versa. Even fly-half we have Slade who has played there regularly and Watson could possibly cover full-back if we were absolutely desperate. But at scrum-half, if Youngs stubs a toe, then we have George Ford covering, who I believe has never played there professionally and whose only qualification is being a short-arse. Granted, we wouldn't bring him on there out of choice, but imagine the game against France where Heinz gets concussed in the first minute and we're left with Ford/Farrell at 9/10!

Seems like a completely unnecessary risk to me, but it's clearly the one that we're choosing to take.

Puja

Watson is possibly the best FB in the squad, and the best back three - Watson (FB) May and Daly (wings.)

The joke that just keeps on giving.

Puja wrote:Which does seem to me utterly bananas. If a centre gets injured, some of our back three can play passable centre, as can one of our fly-halves. If a lock goes down, it's possible to shove a back row in there and vice versa. Even fly-half we have Slade who has played there regularly and Watson could possibly cover full-back if we were absolutely desperate. But at scrum-half, if Youngs stubs a toe, then we have George Ford covering, who I believe has never played there professionally and whose only qualification is being a short-arse. Granted, we wouldn't bring him on there out of choice, but imagine the game against France where Heinz gets concussed in the first minute and we're left with Ford/Farrell at 9/10!

Seems like a completely unnecessary risk to me, but it's clearly the one that we're choosing to take.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Puja wrote:Which does seem to me utterly bananas. If a centre gets injured, some of our back three can play passable centre, as can one of our fly-halves. If a lock goes down, it's possible to shove a back row in there and vice versa. Even fly-half we have Slade who has played there regularly and Watson could possibly cover full-back if we were absolutely desperate. But at scrum-half, if Youngs stubs a toe, then we have George Ford covering, who I believe has never played there professionally and whose only qualification is being a short-arse. Granted, we wouldn't bring him on there out of choice, but imagine the game against France where Heinz gets concussed in the first minute and we're left with Ford/Farrell at 9/10!

Seems like a completely unnecessary risk to me, but it's clearly the one that we're choosing to take.

Puja

Watson is possibly the best FB in the squad, and the best back three - Watson (FB) May and Daly (wings.)

The joke that just keeps on giving.

Two bites in one day is decent going

Having numerous big carriers really does make the game a lot easier. Especially when they don't lack in other departments too severely.

Puja wrote:Which does seem to me utterly bananas.

We were all thinking it, thankfully someone has stepped forward to say it

Can you ping EJ a message before 13:00 to that affect?