RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

Frankly...again...every unit of the team needs at least an injection of quality- as you say, some is about regaining form, but I'm struggling to see where to get it in some areas.

Between now and the World Cup, yes I agree. Some of that unit improvement will come in the actual lead in to the tournament I expect, when players and the team get a lengthy spell to prepare and we get our best squad all together for a prolonged period.

For right now and to have a shot at winning this 6 nations, I think we need to prioritise improving our setpiece and discipline. Get that right and I think we’ve show enough development in other areas to have confidence.

Yep, fair, then at least the rest has a chance to develop.

On a wider point I’m very sorry to hear about Underhill’s lay off and that does raise the question on the direction England are going to take with the openside role.

Hopefully it forces (with Lawes out as well) us to stop playing Curry at 8.

6 Ludlam, 7 Curry, 8 Dombrandt I'll be more than happy with. Then I'll only get angry about the backs.

Well, the centres and possibly the wings.

Danno wrote:Hopefully it forces (with Lawes out as well) us to stop playing Curry at 8.

6 Ludlam, 7 Curry, 8 Dombrandt I'll be more than happy with. Then I'll only get angry about the backs.

Well, the centres and possibly the wings.

If Curry and Dombrandt start at 7 and 8, wouldn't be surprised to see Alfie Barbeary at 6.
He's well up for it and could wreak havoc.
Ludlam looks nothing special. A decent player who will give 100% and won't let the team down, but lacking the Alfie X factor.
Re centres and wings - I'd expect Jones to come up with something like :

Malins Slade Daly Nowell

with a possibility of Nowell/Daly reversing slots.

‘England to unleash 6ft 6in juggernaut’

You have to love such headlines. Go the Daily Mail!!…

And they aren’t referring to Radwan

Steward’s still growing then.

All the pundits seem absolutely obsessed with how tall he is for some reason.

Nowell getting talked up at 13- when did he last play there?

Danno wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Are we really doing this again?

Sozz, I know I shouldn't

If everyone could just agree to leave the bait alone for a couple of weeks, we may be about to get it down to just 50% of the posts here being about the difference between a 6 and a 7.

16th man wrote:

Danno wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Are we really doing this again?

Sozz, I know I shouldn't

If everyone could just agree to leave the bait alone for a couple of weeks, we may be about to get it down to just 50% of the posts here being about the difference between a 6 and a 7.

It's tricky because the back row debate is quite interesting. I'm sure we've all voiced our opinions more than once at this point, but yeah... there's a line. I'm probably the most guilty of anyone of indulging it though, I just find the obsession kind of fascinating.

Didn't Nowell play 13 in the Mercer/Care/Lozowski career-ender match against Japan? It's hard to know where Jones is on Daly as a 13, but you'd think he'd play there ahead of Nowell unless he just wants someone outside Slade who can crash it up?

Marler is reported as available. I have seen nothing definite about others. Lawes and Marchant are still doubtful presumably.

I really don’t see him moving Slade from 13. Juggernaut will be at 12 .. otherwise what is the effing point of him being in the squad

Mikey Brown wrote:

16th man wrote:

Danno wrote:Sozz, I know I shouldn't

If everyone could just agree to leave the bait alone for a couple of weeks, we may be about to get it down to just 50% of the posts here being about the difference between a 6 and a 7.

It's tricky because the back row debate is quite interesting. I'm sure we've all voiced our opinions more than once at this point, but yeah... there's a line. I'm probably the most guilty of anyone of indulging it though, I just find the obsession kind of fascinating.

Didn't Nowell play 13 in the Mercer/Care/Lozowski career-ender match against Japan? It's hard to know where Jones is on Daly as a 13, but you'd think he'd play there ahead of Nowell unless he just wants someone outside Slade who can crash it up?

Looks like you are right on the Japan game- 3 1/2 years ago, but was meaning for club? Mind, he plays so little its hard to tell I guess. I don't really see Nowell crashing it up tho, but he'd want watching as a running threat for sure- defensively, he'd have to be a worry...mind, ditto Daly. The backs are a right old mess tbh.

p/d wrote:I really don’t see him moving Slade from 13. Juggernaut will be at 12 .. otherwise what is the effing point of him being in the squad

Have to say I agree with this, as obviously Eddie saying he was thinking about Slade at 12 and Marchant at 13 was classic misdirection. Maybe.

I really hope Marchant makes it.

Mikey Brown wrote:I really hope Marchant makes it.

Aye, though wouldn't be surprised if Eddie doubled down on blindside wing theory and stuck him there.

p/d wrote:‘England to unleash 6ft 6in juggernaut’

You have to love such headlines. Go the Daily Mail!!…

And they aren’t referring to Radwan

I think it was the Heil that had a Woodward article suggesting that Steward might be the long term answer at 12 the other day. I'm not sure why you'd want to move a fullback who's so dominant in the air after we've spent the last few years desperate for one.

FKAS wrote:

p/d wrote:‘England to unleash 6ft 6in juggernaut’

You have to love such headlines. Go the Daily Mail!!…

And they aren’t referring to Radwan

I think it was the Heil that had a Woodward article suggesting that Steward might be the long term answer at 12 the other day. I'm not sure why you'd want to move a fullback who's so dominant in the air after we've spent the last few years desperate for one.

Sadly SCW’s articles are generally self serving with comic value

Marler is now confirmed as being back in training. Courtney Lawes and Jonny Hill are not fit to train as of yet.

England debut for Chessum looming, off the bench at least, unless Isiekwe's made a ridiculous impression to leapfrog him.

Puja

p/d wrote:

FKAS wrote:

p/d wrote:‘England to unleash 6ft 6in juggernaut’

You have to love such headlines. Go the Daily Mail!!…

And they aren’t referring to Radwan

I think it was the Heil that had a Woodward article suggesting that Steward might be the long term answer at 12 the other day. I'm not sure why you'd want to move a fullback who's so dominant in the air after we've spent the last few years desperate for one.

Sadly SCW’s articles are generally self serving with comic value

It does often read like he's been told to write something and sensationalise it.

Puja wrote:Marler is now confirmed as being back in training. Courtney Lawes and Jonny Hill are not fit to train as of yet.

England debut for Chessum looming, off the bench at least, unless Isiekwe's made a ridiculous impression to leapfrog him.

Puja

Is the assumption Ewels starts if Hill is out? I think Lawes probably only plays 6, if he is even fit. I'd be tempted to give Chessum the start. He just looks built for it.

I'd play Isiekwe, I'm not sure what it is that Eddie doesn't like

Peej wrote:I'd play Isiekwe, I'm not sure what it is that Eddie doesn't like

Pronouncing his name. It’s the only reason I can think of as to why the name Ewels keeps appearing in his squad listing

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:Marler is now confirmed as being back in training. Courtney Lawes and Jonny Hill are not fit to train as of yet.

England debut for Chessum looming, off the bench at least, unless Isiekwe's made a ridiculous impression to leapfrog him.

Puja

Is the assumption Ewels starts if Hill is out? I think Lawes probably only plays 6, if he is even fit. I'd be tempted to give Chessum the start. He just looks built for it.

I am assuming Ewels starts, yes. I'd prefer that he not, as we have sufficient proof that he is a decent player just below what is needed for top-level international rugby (as I suspect we'll discover is Atkinson's level) and I think we should be looki g to do better.

However, I am willing to trust Eddie on this - while Ewels is proven to be not quite good enough, I don't want to give the shirt to Chessum/Isiekwe by fiat. If they're not good enough to take the shirt from him, then I'd rather he plays and fills a shirt well enough than play someone else because they're young and haven't failed yet.

tl;dr - I'd prefer Ewels not play, but that preference is based upon Chessum/Isiekwe having torn the shirt away from him in training. If they haven't made a clear case to start, then go with Old Sort-Of-Reliable.

Puja

p/d wrote:

Peej wrote:I'd play Isiekwe, I'm not sure what it is that Eddie doesn't like

Pronouncing his name. It’s the only reason I can think of as to why the name Ewels keeps appearing in his squad listing

I still mourn the loss of Uzokwe and Ibuanokpe to top level rugby and the terror that a pack involving them, Itoje and Isiekwe would put into Kiwi commentators.

Puja

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Peej wrote:I'd play Isiekwe, I'm not sure what it is that Eddie doesn't like

Pronouncing his name. It’s the only reason I can think of as to why the name Ewels keeps appearing in his squad listing

I still mourn the loss of Uzokwe and Ibuanokpe to top level rugby and the terror that a pack involving them, Itoje and Isiekwe would put into Kiwi commentators.

Puja

Maybe you lot could start by not referring to everyone that is not white and from Polynesia as a "south sea Islander" like some fucking RLS novel.