RugbyRebels

Digby wrote: I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

I was about to post about all the benefits that would come with winning and suddenly though "Actually, I think it might be best if we lost". I don't want an excuse for persisting with things like Haskell-Robshaw or Hartley as captain longer than necessary; they are not World Cup winning solutions nor will they ever be.

I feel somewhat dirty for having thought it, but my celebrations would be somewhat muted if encouragement was given to what definitely looks like going in the wrong direction.

edit: I now think beating SH teams means more to me than winning the 6N.

Pie Man wrote:What I can't decide on is whether picking Manu at 12 would be because it's best for the team and it's future direction, or because it would be the best thing in a one-off game to nullify Roberts.

I have loudly preached the virtues of being skeptical about Jones' public announcements, but I think in this case, it's safe to assume he will definitely trial Tuilagi as a possible long-term 12 sooner or later. Well, unless injuries happen and Slade gets a chance and totally nails it before then. I digress - it seems to be very clearly the former.

Peat wrote:
I was about to post about all the benefits that would come with winning

There certainly are benefits that come from winning, but as we saw with beating NZ there aren't only benefits.

Digby wrote:I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

Surely though, you can agree that winning a second tier competition is much better than failing to win a second tier competition?

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

Surely though, you can agree that winning a second tier competition is much better than failing to win a second tier competition?

+1. Especially a 2-tier comp we hav'nt won for years. A step forward is a step forward.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

Surely though, you can agree that winning a second tier competition is much better than failing to win a second tier competition?

I think we could play well and lose, which to me still seems better than limping though a game a sneaking a win. For now I'd take the playing well, good basics, good discipline, good options in attack..., of course if you have those things you're also more likely to win. And if one managers a game of playing well next up I'd like a game of playing better.

Digby wrote: I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

I don't think we can act like we're above it when we've only won the thing once in 13 years. We need to get quite a bit better before we can disdain a 6N win - right now it'd be an achievement.

Puja

I'm fed up of not winning the 6N and would like us to do whatever to win the game. As we should do for every game.

If our coach is unable to plan for the future while winning current games, I think we need to look for other coaches.

ENGLAND SQUAD:


Forwards (14)
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs)
Jack Clifford (Harlequins)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins)
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens)

Backs (10)
Mike Brown (Harlequins)
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Elliot Daly (Wasps)
Owen Farrell (Saracens)
George Ford (Bath Rugby)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

Good call on Manu, but a little illogical given previous benches ....which were illogical in the first place. George has a knock. Brookes gets the nod as predicted.

So its either Farrell or Manu at 12 then. Good call on retaining Daly over Goode.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote: I struggle with the notion that winning a comp which is so far off the best of tier 1 rugby can mean much. It's what's there I guess, but it's not very interesting as things stand.

I don't think we can act like we're above it when we've only won the thing once in 13 years. We need to get quite a bit better before we can disdain a 6N win - right now it'd be an achievement.

Puja

I rather like the 6N, it's just the teams in it I have a certain amount of disdain for.

That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

Digby wrote:That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

There's always compromises when picking the bench. This is certainly better than previous. Still no sign of a 12 in the XXIII.

Digby wrote:That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

Care has played a bit on before hasn't he? Youngs has probably played there a few times aswell

Don't see why starting with two tens is that much riskier than having one on the bench. And I never bought this idea that Goode was adequate FH cover at international level anyway.

Just very happy that, for the first time in a long time, we will have a bench that can actually have an impact. It has big carryers and speed.

So much better than having wriggelsworth and Goode coming on after 60 mins

Digby wrote:That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

Daly, he'd be the only back left who can both kick and pass. Also apparently played some 10 at school.

Would like to see him get some time at 15 going forward, think his passing would help the wings threaten more. Also, if tuilagi turns into a decent 12 lets us get both of them plus Joseph on the pitch at the same time.

Digby wrote:That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

Probably Care - he seems like the kind who would love the responsibility and probably demanded it all the way through school as his right as the most talented player.

After him, probably Brown. He's got the most experience in the team and would likely be the least fazed.

I don't know it's really an issue though; you'd be very unlucky to lose both and I don't think there's any need for three 10s in a XXIII.

Puja

All the papers seem to say Tuilagi will be on the bench with Youngs starting. Youngs is a very lucky imo and another crap game will surely spell the end.

Digby wrote:That we start both 10s does make no Goode a bit interesting, in that there's not an Eastmond or Goode floating around who could go to 10 in the event we lost Ford and Farrell. I know you could always lose both 10s to injury but it seems a little different when starting both. So unlikely, but for poops and giggles if we did lose both 10s who would you put at 10, why, and how would you expect them to play with that blitz coming at them?

Daly? Hoof the leather off it and try to make them concede a penalty within 50-60m of the sticks?

bitts wrote:Don't see why starting with two tens is that much riskier than having one on the bench.

I think the concern is it gives both of them a potential full 80 (160 minutes of player time) to go down instead of 80 minutes between them...

Don't necessarily agree, how often do 2 inside backs get crocked in one match, but it has a certain mathematical logic...

no votes for Manu starting at 13. Apart from his one excursion to the wing not sure he has played much elsewhere.

I think this, if anything, highlights the issues we have had with the 12 shirt.

I'd move Joseph to the wing, Manu in at 13 and Watson to fb. And for the 12 berth go with.. go with.. go with ... oh yeah, bollocks.

bitts wrote:Don't see why starting with two tens is that much riskier than having one on the bench. And I never bought this idea that Goode was adequate FH cover at international level anyway.

Well if players get injured playing and they're both on the pitch there has to be more risk. If one is sat on the bench simply in anticipation of an injury that'll drop their minutes on the pitch. And Goode wouldn't be part of my answer to the problem, but he was there as a last resort, and we don't have an Austin Healey on the wing, or a Parra at 9 who can remotely cover

p/d wrote:no votes for Manu starting at 13. Apart from his one excursion to the wing not sure he has played much elsewhere.

I think this, if anything, highlights the issues we have had with the 12 shirt.

I'd move Joseph to the wing, Manu in at 13 and Watson to fb. And for the 12 berth go with.. go with.. go with ... oh yeah, bollocks.

Manu defended at 12 when he first came into the team, he used to swap on attack/defence with Tinds.

p/d wrote:no votes for Manu starting at 13. Apart from his one excursion to the wing not sure he has played much elsewhere.

I think this, if anything, highlights the issues we have had with the 12 shirt.

I'd move Joseph to the wing, Manu in at 13 and Watson to fb. And for the 12 berth go with.. go with.. go with ... oh yeah, bollocks.

He played 12 on the SA tour and in the 2011 RWC (though he and Tindall swapped around a bit).

skidger wrote:All the papers seem to say Tuilagi will be on the bench with Youngs starting. Youngs is a very lucky imo and another crap game will surely spell the end.

I just don't know what to say about the prospect of Youngs starting.

Hopefully it is as simple as that. He's giving this 50-odd cap player one more chance to show that he isn't a useless pile of crap and is worth keeping around. He'll have to do a lot

He's also been swapping between 12 and 13 for his recent games… I think defensively he'll be fine there and it largely won't matter where he attacks from as long as he's used to hold defenders, looks to offload when its on, and passes once in a blue moon