RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:Hope you are right.

It does feel like there may be a lot of hope in that post-facto justification

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:But if we run the legs off of those dynamic, mobile ball carriers in training, they won't be any better than the group currently playing...

True but I assume we won’t go into a World Cup having run the legs off the players.

Agreed, but we could say the same for the players we have...

Are you saying that you think a pack containing Cole, Hartley, Lawes at 6 and Robshaw at 7 is mobile and dynamic enough and has enough carriers, even if not being beasted in training?
My point is that, beasted or not, the current pack isn’t well balanced.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: True but I assume we won’t go into a World Cup having run the legs off the players.

Agreed, but we could say the same for the players we have...

Are you saying that you think a pack containing Cole, Hartley, Lawes at 6 and Robshaw at 7 is mobile and dynamic enough and has enough carriers, even if not being beasted in training?
My point is that, beasted or not, the current pack isn’t well balanced.

Cole is the weak link. Hartley provides a lot of clearing out. Robshaw at 6 and Lawes to bench. Sinkler and Williams are already in the squad, Lawes wouldn't be at 6 (I'd hope) if Underhill was fit, or maybe even if Hughes and BV were fit (then Simmonds could be tried at 7 too).

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Agreed, but we could say the same for the players we have...

Are you saying that you think a pack containing Cole, Hartley, Lawes at 6 and Robshaw at 7 is mobile and dynamic enough and has enough carriers, even if not being beasted in training?
My point is that, beasted or not, the current pack isn’t well balanced.

Cole is the weak link. Hartley provides a lot of clearing out. Robshaw at 6 and Lawes to bench. Sinkler and Williams are already in the squad, Lawes wouldn't be at 6 (I'd hope) if Underhill was fit, or maybe even if Hughes and BV were fit (then Simmonds could be tried at 7 too).

Ah, ok. I thought you were saying stay with the status quo as they’ll be fine when not beasted.
I agree that Cole needs to go. The difference when Sinckler came on was stark, even when taking into account fresh legs v tired oppo and 60mins pacing v 20mins empty the tank.
I hope Lawes at 6 is done and dusted.
I’m not so sure about the defence for Hartley. He may hit a lot of rucks but I question his effectiveness - I thought similar of Wood - he also misses far too many tackles and carries like a wet fish. That said, both hookers showed failings on the weekend though they do deserve more of a chance, particularly in a well functioning team.

Which games is Hartley providing a lot of clearing out in? Or does being somewhere near a breakdown count the same?