RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:
They are. Underhill made 17 meters in 9 carries which was the best effort. Sinckler made 2 meters in 10 carries.

Also from the stats, our SH's had possession 111 times to Dupont's 54.

We didn't lack for ball, or for good positions from which to score from as we enjoyed 61% possession and 70% territory.

Not surprising. We kept the ball relatively securely, if incredibly slowly, but our attacking moves mostly consisted of passing the ball down the line and hoping someone beat a tackle against a Shaun Edwards defence. Simon Amor has not impressed so far

Puja

....we kept the ball relatively securely???

Oh yes. Did you not see all those times where we kept the ball 20 phases while steadily backpedalling? The pinnacle was that bit in the first half where we went from inside their 22 to the halfway line.

Puja

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I never thought we would win after about the 5th minute but we could have done on the back of May's two tries. At no stage did we deserve to win though.

I thought Underhill had a bad game. A back row of Curry, Willis and Hughes would be hell of an improvement. Yes, I know Hughes ain't Billy but he'd have made a huge difference yesterday.

The two old chestnuts just have to be swallowed. Both Youngs and Heinz need omitting and Spencer/Robson should be given the rest of the 6N, at least. Farrell needs to be at 10 or out altogether. It might be best for all if he was 'rested'.

If Launchbury is fit, he should start alongside Itoje, with Lawes on the bench. That gives a tight second row that can think under pressure.

Analysing the game, requires less science and more psychology, IMO. Looking at possession, territory or whatever does not cover up the collective mindset which produced so many errors. At no point was that team unit ever in control of its own destiny. The players simply did not march on to the pitch confident in their collective ability to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Selection, strategy, preparation? As others have pointed out, how can we KNOW? We can't, but looking at the body language, so many players looked clueless under pressure.

I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

Oakboy wrote:
I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

I remember Miles Davies saying it's not about standing still and becoming safe, mind he also said anybody can play, and that if he only had an hour to live he's spend it choking a white man

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Not surprising. We kept the ball relatively securely, if incredibly slowly, but our attacking moves mostly consisted of passing the ball down the line and hoping someone beat a tackle against a Shaun Edwards defence. Simon Amor has not impressed so far

Puja

....we kept the ball relatively securely???

Oh yes. Did you not see all those times where we kept the ball 20 phases while steadily backpedalling? The pinnacle was that bit in the first half where we went from inside their 22 to the halfway line.

Puja

Hmm- seemed to me we were losing the ball for fun In the first half, and notably knocking on when about to score in the second.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I never thought we would win after about the 5th minute but we could have done on the back of May's two tries. At no stage did we deserve to win though.

I thought Underhill had a bad game. A back row of Curry, Willis and Hughes would be hell of an improvement. Yes, I know Hughes ain't Billy but he'd have made a huge difference yesterday.

The two old chestnuts just have to be swallowed. Both Youngs and Heinz need omitting and Spencer/Robson should be given the rest of the 6N, at least. Farrell needs to be at 10 or out altogether. It might be best for all if he was 'rested'.

If Launchbury is fit, he should start alongside Itoje, with Lawes on the bench. That gives a tight second row that can think under pressure.

Analysing the game, requires less science and more psychology, IMO. Looking at possession, territory or whatever does not cover up the collective mindset which produced so many errors. At no point was that team unit ever in control of its own destiny. The players simply did not march on to the pitch confident in their collective ability to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Selection, strategy, preparation? As others have pointed out, how can we KNOW? We can't, but looking at the body language, so many players looked clueless under pressure.

I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

I can only imagine the improvements in ball retention we’d have gained from Hughes skipping merrily into that rabid French defence.

...not that I ever would have picked Curry at 8.

I’m a big Launchbury fan I’m wondering if his stock has risen rather a lot just from not being involved in either of the last two games?

Not much to add but things I leanrt were:
1) Some people on here DO know a thing or two
2) Selection had most to do with that performance

Favourite moment for me was POC going on about a "huge hit from Farrell" as the video showed his gurning face hit the turf and the Fickou(?) running past him.

With you Mike on the Launch situation. Has his form improved this term?
Just struggle to see past Itoje & Kruis at the moment

p/d wrote:With you Mike on the Launch situation. Has his form improved this term?
Just struggle to see past Itoje & Kruis at the moment

I actually think Itoje needs a good break from test rugby- throughout that match he looked like a bunny caught in glare of headlights and needs to reboot his carrying game (which had previously been coming on nicely). Maybe he was simply aghast at Curry coughing up more pils than Glaxo-Smith Kline! )Ewels is Kruislite enough said - wearing a jockstrap round your head is so passé

Expecting Scots to role out full 1990 works this weekend - even their back row has more than a passing resemblance to the fabled: Fin, the Great White Shark and Jaws!

I think SCW is right, Farrell at 10 or not at all. But Ford deserves to keep the 10 shirt so Farrell to the bench. Devoto to 12.

Dombrandt or Simmonds to 8 would be wonderful but as it won't happen, Ludlam to 8, Underhill to 6 and Curry to 7. Curry and Underhill have been an absolute phenomenon, so why change it??

Start Kruis and Itoje. Lawes to the bench.

9... oh god how depressing. I guess start Heinz. What an impact a great 9 has on the game, I'm so used to crap at 9 for England that you almost forget it, Dupont is an absolute game changer. We need something like him from somewhere.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I never thought we would win after about the 5th minute but we could have done on the back of May's two tries. At no stage did we deserve to win though.

I thought Underhill had a bad game. A back row of Curry, Willis and Hughes would be hell of an improvement. Yes, I know Hughes ain't Billy but he'd have made a huge difference yesterday.

The two old chestnuts just have to be swallowed. Both Youngs and Heinz need omitting and Spencer/Robson should be given the rest of the 6N, at least. Farrell needs to be at 10 or out altogether. It might be best for all if he was 'rested'.

If Launchbury is fit, he should start alongside Itoje, with Lawes on the bench. That gives a tight second row that can think under pressure.

Analysing the game, requires less science and more psychology, IMO. Looking at possession, territory or whatever does not cover up the collective mindset which produced so many errors. At no point was that team unit ever in control of its own destiny. The players simply did not march on to the pitch confident in their collective ability to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Selection, strategy, preparation? As others have pointed out, how can we KNOW? We can't, but looking at the body language, so many players looked clueless under pressure.

I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

Underhill is not a problem, he's been a revelation. I'd play him at 6 not 7 but I really don't think he deserves to be dropped.

TheDasher wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:I’m only one then who, at no stage, thought we might/could win?

I never thought we would win after about the 5th minute but we could have done on the back of May's two tries. At no stage did we deserve to win though.

I thought Underhill had a bad game. A back row of Curry, Willis and Hughes would be hell of an improvement. Yes, I know Hughes ain't Billy but he'd have made a huge difference yesterday.

The two old chestnuts just have to be swallowed. Both Youngs and Heinz need omitting and Spencer/Robson should be given the rest of the 6N, at least. Farrell needs to be at 10 or out altogether. It might be best for all if he was 'rested'.

If Launchbury is fit, he should start alongside Itoje, with Lawes on the bench. That gives a tight second row that can think under pressure.

Analysing the game, requires less science and more psychology, IMO. Looking at possession, territory or whatever does not cover up the collective mindset which produced so many errors. At no point was that team unit ever in control of its own destiny. The players simply did not march on to the pitch confident in their collective ability to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Selection, strategy, preparation? As others have pointed out, how can we KNOW? We can't, but looking at the body language, so many players looked clueless under pressure.

I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

Underhill is not a problem, he's been a revelation. I'd play him at 6 not 7 but I really don't think he deserves to be dropped.

Yes despite the IMO grossly exagerated perception that T Curry has Richard Hill like levels of back row versitility and a big carrying game to boot - for me he’s an out and out openside at test level - and making him into a mediocre blindside (let alone no.8) appears to have been a long term strategic blunder by Mitchell, Jones and whichever other numpty had a hand in it and if I were Tom Curry I’d study one or two of his predecessors career’s especially Tom Wood’s with caution in case history is repeating itself.

Underhill may not be as good an openside as Curry but for me he’s the better all round back row player of the two(bigger carrying game, unbelievably good defender and more explosive). If one is forced to play a 7 at 6 it seemed he (or Ludlum) was the smarter way to go than ballsing up Curry’s career because the selection of the entire squad was ballsed up to begin with!

jngf wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I never thought we would win after about the 5th minute but we could have done on the back of May's two tries. At no stage did we deserve to win though.

I thought Underhill had a bad game. A back row of Curry, Willis and Hughes would be hell of an improvement. Yes, I know Hughes ain't Billy but he'd have made a huge difference yesterday.

The two old chestnuts just have to be swallowed. Both Youngs and Heinz need omitting and Spencer/Robson should be given the rest of the 6N, at least. Farrell needs to be at 10 or out altogether. It might be best for all if he was 'rested'.

If Launchbury is fit, he should start alongside Itoje, with Lawes on the bench. That gives a tight second row that can think under pressure.

Analysing the game, requires less science and more psychology, IMO. Looking at possession, territory or whatever does not cover up the collective mindset which produced so many errors. At no point was that team unit ever in control of its own destiny. The players simply did not march on to the pitch confident in their collective ability to take the game by the scruff of the neck. Selection, strategy, preparation? As others have pointed out, how can we KNOW? We can't, but looking at the body language, so many players looked clueless under pressure.

I remember Mike Davis saying his training sessions included loads of practise in coping with 'cock-ups'. That might be a place to start but have we got characters who can adapt and adjust during the game any more?

Underhill is not a problem, he's been a revelation. I'd play him at 6 not 7 but I really don't think he deserves to be dropped.

Yes despite the IMO grossly exagerated perception that T Curry has Richard Hill like levels of back row versitility and a big carrying game to boot - for me he’s an out and out openside at test level - and making him into a mediocre blindside (let alone no.8) appears to have been a long term strategic blunder by Mitchell, Jones and whichever other numpty had a hand in it and if I were Tom Curry I’d study one or two of his predecessors career’s especially Tom Wood’s with caution in case history is repeating itself.

Underhill may not be as good an openside as Curry but for me he’s the better all round back row player of the two(bigger carrying game, unbelievably good defender and more explosive). If one is forced to play a 7 at 6 it seemed he (or Ludlum) was the smarter way to go than ballsing up Curry’s career because the selection of the entire squad was ballsed up to begin with!

I agree with you that Curry is the more obvious 7 and Underhill the more obvious 6, no question for me either. Only caveat is that I'm not 100% convinced that the number makes too much difference, with these two, we just need them on the flanks, not at number 8! Again though, I'm with you, I would go 7 Curry, 6 Underhill.

Ludlam's a good athlete, he's quick and powerful and I'd have thought with the irritating absence of Dombrandt and Simmonds, he should be at 8 when picking from the existing squad.

Having picked a squad without an 8, and I don’t think anybody is disagreeing with you Jngf that Curry is really a 7 (incase that saves you any effort typing that same paragraph out a dozen times a day) but I’m guessing he is the guy packing down there because he has previously done the best job controlling the ball and running from the back.

I think he was shown up in those areas, which may hopefully force Jones’s hand. But I’d guess he has also looked at Ludlum there. Earl seems the obvious choice given he actually does the job at club level.

None of this solves the imbalance in the backrow but I think you’re conflating that issue with fussing over who is wearing which shirt.

TheDasher wrote:I think SCW is right, Farrell at 10 or not at all. But Ford deserves to keep the 10 shirt so Farrell to the bench. Devoto to 12.

Dombrandt or Simmonds to 8 would be wonderful but as it won't happen, Ludlam to 8, Underhill to 6 and Curry to 7. Curry and Underhill have been an absolute phenomenon, so why change it??

Start Kruis and Itoje. Lawes to the bench.

9... oh god how depressing. I guess start Heinz. What an impact a great 9 has on the game, I'm so used to crap at 9 for England that you almost forget it, Dupont is an absolute game changer. We need something like him from somewhere.

Genuine q- how much has ludlam played 8?

TheDasher wrote:

jngf wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Underhill is not a problem, he's been a revelation. I'd play him at 6 not 7 but I really don't think he deserves to be dropped.

Yes despite the IMO grossly exagerated perception that T Curry has Richard Hill like levels of back row versitility and a big carrying game to boot - for me he’s an out and out openside at test level - and making him into a mediocre blindside (let alone no.8) appears to have been a long term strategic blunder by Mitchell, Jones and whichever other numpty had a hand in it and if I were Tom Curry I’d study one or two of his predecessors career’s especially Tom Wood’s with caution in case history is repeating itself.

Underhill may not be as good an openside as Curry but for me he’s the better all round back row player of the two(bigger carrying game, unbelievably good defender and more explosive). If one is forced to play a 7 at 6 it seemed he (or Ludlum) was the smarter way to go than ballsing up Curry’s career because the selection of the entire squad was ballsed up to begin with!

I agree with you that Curry is the more obvious 7 and Underhill the more obvious 6, no question for me either. Only caveat is that I'm not 100% convinced that the number makes too much difference, with these two, we just need them on the flanks, not at number 8! Again though, I'm with you, I would go 7 Curry, 6 Underhill.

Ludlam's a good athlete, he's quick and powerful and I'd have thought with the irritating absence of Dombrandt and Simmonds, he should be at 8 when picking from the existing squad.

Exactly this, far too hung up on 6 v 7 as a number, its the roles they perform in the loose that matters. Jones just likes Underhill to be playing openside from set plays for his more destructive tackling in defence (though he needs to improve his clearing in attack); of course this was all thrown by playing Lawes at 6. Prior to Sunday, in loose play, Curry and Underhill were used to their strengths in the loose.

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:I think SCW is right, Farrell at 10 or not at all. But Ford deserves to keep the 10 shirt so Farrell to the bench. Devoto to 12.

Dombrandt or Simmonds to 8 would be wonderful but as it won't happen, Ludlam to 8, Underhill to 6 and Curry to 7. Curry and Underhill have been an absolute phenomenon, so why change it??

Start Kruis and Itoje. Lawes to the bench.

9... oh god how depressing. I guess start Heinz. What an impact a great 9 has on the game, I'm so used to crap at 9 for England that you almost forget it, Dupont is an absolute game changer. We need something like him from somewhere.

Genuine q- how much has ludlam played 8?

I don't know the answer to that. I think last time I watched Saints was against Leinster and pretty sure he played 8 then.

I must add that he wouldn't be my pick there generally, but from the match day squad EJ had, once he'd dropped Earl, I feel Ludlam is much more a natural 8 than Curry. His running style/stride and acceleration etc, plus he takes some real stopping. Personally I'm a big Sam Simmonds fan and Dombrandt seems like a no-brainer too. Because Earl is in the squad, I'd be more than happy with him there too vs Scotland, anyone but Curry!

Off topic - how has Nick Isiekwe been doing for Sarries?

He's gone from being a great hope to being dropped before half time by EJ and is nowhere to be seen for England. Looks a fine athlete and a big lump - has his form not been good?

Still trying to rationalise the Ewels call. Like many others I'd always pick Launchbury but I know he's injured.

TheDasher wrote:Off topic - how has Nick Isiekwe been doing for Sarries?

He's gone from being a great hope to being dropped before half time by EJ and is nowhere to be seen for England. Looks a fine athlete and a big lump - has his form not been good?

Still trying to rationalise the Ewels call. Like many others I'd always pick Launchbury but I know he's injured.

In fairness, Ewels has stepped up on every occasion England have asked him to previously, albeit the majority of that was from the bench. I wouldn't have picked him myself, but I wasn't concerned about him playing when the team was announced.

Puja

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Off topic - how has Nick Isiekwe been doing for Sarries?

He's gone from being a great hope to being dropped before half time by EJ and is nowhere to be seen for England. Looks a fine athlete and a big lump - has his form not been good?

Still trying to rationalise the Ewels call. Like many others I'd always pick Launchbury but I know he's injured.

In fairness, Ewels has stepped up on every occasion England have asked him to previously, albeit the majority of that was from the bench. I wouldn't have picked him myself, but I wasn't concerned about him playing when the team was announced.

Puja

I'm with you, I wasn't concerned either, I was fine with it, but then we're not paid millions to make these calls

Do you know how Isiekwe is doing?

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

jngf wrote:
Yes despite the IMO grossly exagerated perception that T Curry has Richard Hill like levels of back row versitility and a big carrying game to boot - for me he’s an out and out openside at test level - and making him into a mediocre blindside (let alone no.8) appears to have been a long term strategic blunder by Mitchell, Jones and whichever other numpty had a hand in it and if I were Tom Curry I’d study one or two of his predecessors career’s especially Tom Wood’s with caution in case history is repeating itself.

Underhill may not be as good an openside as Curry but for me he’s the better all round back row player of the two(bigger carrying game, unbelievably good defender and more explosive). If one is forced to play a 7 at 6 it seemed he (or Ludlum) was the smarter way to go than ballsing up Curry’s career because the selection of the entire squad was ballsed up to begin with!

I agree with you that Curry is the more obvious 7 and Underhill the more obvious 6, no question for me either. Only caveat is that I'm not 100% convinced that the number makes too much difference, with these two, we just need them on the flanks, not at number 8! Again though, I'm with you, I would go 7 Curry, 6 Underhill.

Ludlam's a good athlete, he's quick and powerful and I'd have thought with the irritating absence of Dombrandt and Simmonds, he should be at 8 when picking from the existing squad.

Exactly this, far too hung up on 6 v 7 as a number, its the roles they perform in the loose that matters. Jones just likes Underhill to be playing openside from set plays for his more destructive tackling in defence (though he needs to improve his clearing in attack); of course this was all thrown by playing Lawes at 6. Prior to Sunday, in loose play, Curry and Underhill were used to their strengths in the loose.

Actually disagree with your last point especially, since moving to 6 Curry’s linking game (his biggest strength imo) has diminished as the brains trust have tried to convert him into some sort of big carrying 6. I think will just have to accept we are ireconcilable on the importance or not of back row specialisms - Imo it’s not been a case of Curry and Underhill being asked to play their strongest games irrespective of shirt no. Mitchell said as much in Telegraph interview last year about Curry being expected to hold back on his fetching instinct.

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Off topic - how has Nick Isiekwe been doing for Sarries?

He's gone from being a great hope to being dropped before half time by EJ and is nowhere to be seen for England. Looks a fine athlete and a big lump - has his form not been good?

Still trying to rationalise the Ewels call. Like many others I'd always pick Launchbury but I know he's injured.

In fairness, Ewels has stepped up on every occasion England have asked him to previously, albeit the majority of that was from the bench. I wouldn't have picked him myself, but I wasn't concerned about him playing when the team was announced.

Puja

That match confirmed for me that Ewels is a good club player but not special enough for the step up to test level. Is there really anything he does as well let alone better than any of Launchbury, Kruis, Lawes and Itoje?

It's an interesting one with Ewels, they like him, he's done okay and even well off the bench. And then Saturday came and he took to test rugby like Steve Borthwick. So is the mistake to sending him back to the bench or keep picking him?

For me, the interesting thing about Ewels (and Furbank), is how many people want to talk about him, and dropping him; than for Marler, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell, Joseph and Daly - who are all a lot more senior, and are a lot more deserving of being dropped after that performance.

Which Tyler wrote:For me, the interesting thing about Ewels (and Furbank), is how many people want to talk about him, and dropping him; than for Marler, Sinckler, Itoje, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell, Joseph and Daly - who are all a lot more senior, and are a lot more deserving of being dropped after that performance.

I actually thought Marler did okay. Didn't he make two turnovers?

All of those, apart from Youngs, have credit in the bank and have shown it regularly at international level. It doesn't excuse their performance, but there is hope that this was not their level.

Puja