RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Jones saying Tuilagi is seen exclusively as a 13 and no longer as a potential 12, as he referenced when he first took charge. Looks like we will end the game Ford - Farrell - Tuilagi (which is what I would’ve liked Jones to have picked given Farrell’s nailed on status) if no injuries in the back three.
I wonder if he’ll have a look at Daly - May - Slade back three should we build up a good lead.

Stated like that, the selection makes a great deal more sense. Slade has been the form 13 in the Premiership and deserves his place there. And Eddie is (belatedly) right - Manu is a 13 and does better where he can attack outside shoulders. He can play 12, but it doesn't suit his strengths and I'm starting to think the same of Slade.

Not sure about picking Te'o on no form or fitness, but the other option is Williams (based on 6 good games) or Fazlet and not playing Slade/hanging Slade out to dry in a midfield that doesn't suit him.

Puja

Assuming that questions need answering now, why would Jones not then replace T'eo by moving Slade to 12 when he brings Tuilagi on? Can anything more be learned from Ford/Farrell at 10/12? Of course, Ford could come on as well in a straight swap for Farrell but we all know how unlikely that is.


If I was going to pick a team from the match-day 23 I'd have Care, Ford, Slade, Tuilagi at 9, 10, 12,13. Dare we hope we might see that line-up even for 20 minutes? It could mean Slade proving he can't play 12 which is progress of a sort or he might look the part between a proper 10/13 presence. In future games, might Tuilagi starting with Slade on the bench covering 10,12, 13 and 15 have merit? That could mean a speed-merchant on the bench as well which has to be desirable. Of course, it would also mean Jones having to find the balls to choose between Farrell and Ford, but so what?

I imagine Jones thinks the Tuilagi factor would mean it's well worth having another look at 10 - Ford 12 - Farrell, later in the game. It could definitely do some damage if that bench has the sort of impact it is capable of. It's hard not to think it will always hit the same limitations though.

Peej wrote:

Stom wrote:Positives.

Good to see Sinckler back in the 3 shirt, hopefully his form continues to return to pre-Lions levels.
Itoje and Kruis work very well together when the latter is on form.
Curry persisted with.
The midfield is balanced!
The back 3 are all hard working and hard to put down.

Negatives.

Hartley ahead of George?
2 blindsides...
Ben Youngs
Is Te'o really up to it? From a fitness or a skill pov.
When/if Ford comes on, you just know Farrell is going to shift out one and we're going to be stuck with the sorry mess all over again.

God, I'd be happy with Te'o, even, if it meant Ford got to be at 10 with a balanced backs division.

It's not a bad team, it's just that Eddie continues to make 1-3 baffling calls every time. Wilson doesn't get a look in and then, suddenly, he's asked to play 8 ahead of one of the premierships in form 8s. Te'o after 29 minutes, while Tuilagi benches after I don't know how many games.

I agree with the rest, but has Morgan been consistently good this season, and not just the past couple of games? Was he even getting in to the Glos team in September?

I meant Mercer

Can't be arsed to transcribe this stupid video into a legible format.



Oh, just skip right to the end.

I'm more interested in seeing Ford/Farrell/Tuilagi than Ford/Farrell/Anyone else…

Morgan was injured at the start of the season (calf or hamstring IIRC).

I think Ackermann takes a ‘horses for courses’ approach and mixes up his back row between Ackermann Jnr, Ludlow, Morgan and Polledri depending upon the opposition. Or at least to some extent. Morgan has captained Gloucester a couple of times too so Ackermann obviously rates him/sees him as a leader.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Jones saying Tuilagi is seen exclusively as a 13 and no longer as a potential 12, as he referenced when he first took charge. Looks like we will end the game Ford - Farrell - Tuilagi (which is what I would’ve liked Jones to have picked given Farrell’s nailed on status) if no injuries in the back three.
I wonder if he’ll have a look at Daly - May - Slade back three should we build up a good lead.

Stated like that, the selection makes a great deal more sense. Slade has been the form 13 in the Premiership and deserves his place there. And Eddie is (belatedly) right - Manu is a 13 and does better where he can attack outside shoulders. He can play 12, but it doesn't suit his strengths and I'm starting to think the same of Slade.

Not sure about picking Te'o on no form or fitness, but the other option is Williams (based on 6 good games) or Fazlet and not playing Slade/hanging Slade out to dry in a midfield that doesn't suit him.

Puja

Assuming that questions need answering now, why would Jones not then replace T'eo by moving Slade to 12 when he brings Tuilagi on? Can anything more be learned from Ford/Farrell at 10/12? Of course, Ford could come on as well in a straight swap for Farrell but we all know how unlikely that is.


If I was going to pick a team from the match-day 23 I'd have Care, Ford, Slade, Tuilagi at 9, 10, 12,13. Dare we hope we might see that line-up even for 20 minutes? It could mean Slade proving he can't play 12 which is progress of a sort or he might look the part between a proper 10/13 presence. In future games, might Tuilagi starting with Slade on the bench covering 10,12, 13 and 15 have merit? That could mean a speed-merchant on the bench as well which has to be desirable. Of course, it would also mean Jones having to find the balls to choose between Farrell and Ford, but so what?

Bit of a poor reward for Slade, after saying that he wants to fix at 13, playing regularly for his club at 13, being the best 13 in the Prem, and then putting him in at 12 because you want to put someone who hasn't been as good as him at 13. I do prefer a round peg in a round hole where one's available.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Stated like that, the selection makes a great deal more sense. Slade has been the form 13 in the Premiership and deserves his place there. And Eddie is (belatedly) right - Manu is a 13 and does better where he can attack outside shoulders. He can play 12, but it doesn't suit his strengths and I'm starting to think the same of Slade.

Not sure about picking Te'o on no form or fitness, but the other option is Williams (based on 6 good games) or Fazlet and not playing Slade/hanging Slade out to dry in a midfield that doesn't suit him.

Puja

Assuming that questions need answering now, why would Jones not then replace T'eo by moving Slade to 12 when he brings Tuilagi on? Can anything more be learned from Ford/Farrell at 10/12? Of course, Ford could come on as well in a straight swap for Farrell but we all know how unlikely that is.


If I was going to pick a team from the match-day 23 I'd have Care, Ford, Slade, Tuilagi at 9, 10, 12,13. Dare we hope we might see that line-up even for 20 minutes? It could mean Slade proving he can't play 12 which is progress of a sort or he might look the part between a proper 10/13 presence. In future games, might Tuilagi starting with Slade on the bench covering 10,12, 13 and 15 have merit? That could mean a speed-merchant on the bench as well which has to be desirable. Of course, it would also mean Jones having to find the balls to choose between Farrell and Ford, but so what?

Bit of a poor reward for Slade, after saying that he wants to fix at 13, playing regularly for his club at 13, being the best 13 in the Prem, and then putting him in at 12 because you want to put someone who hasn't been as good as him at 13. I do prefer a round peg in a round hole where one's available.

Puja

You could at least argue that he would fit much better into the (previous) Farrell role at 12 than the bosher/tight-runner/screen-pass-blocker role at 13. He does seem to have added a bit of pace and purpose in the wide channels this season.

Look, if Te'o manages to play even remotely well, this could work well. But we all know it would work better with Ford at 10. I just don't understand it.

Think the real test for England is how the set piece holds up and whether the rookie back row can deliver.
Huge pressure on our props in the scrum, and its asking a lot for a back row combination with such limited experience to rise to the challenge.
Do well here and we might see something of what our backs can do.

fivepointer wrote:Think the real test for England is how the set piece holds up and whether the rookie back row can deliver.
Huge pressure on our props in the scrum, and its asking a lot for a back row combination with such limited experience to rise to the challenge.
Do well here and we might see something of what our backs can do.

Yes, good, solid point. Itoje is a bit young to be carrying a pack on his shoulders.

Hartley needs to have a huge game…
He needs to lead by example, and show why he's selected and that he was a loss when unavailable.
He has more caps than the other 11 forwards combined (if my maths is correct)

Puja wrote:Initial thought is thank f*ck we've not picked Te'o and Manu together, nor is Itoje at 6. So let's be grateful.

However, the rest of it is baffling. Wilson is not bigger than Mercer and isn't an 8. Shields is an 8, but is in no kind of form. The only possible reason to keep Youngs over Care is to keep a club 9/10 combo, which has now been broken because we're dropping Ford now that he's finally in form. We're picking Te'o, who has played 29 minutes, presumably because Manu's not got enough games under his belt? There's no back three cover on the bench and I'm baffled as to what happens if Daly gets injured. Slade at 15? May?!

I am thanking heavens for small mercies, but that is mostly because my expectations were set so abysmally low.

Puja

But you're not thanking heavens for small Mercers? (where is Banquo when you need him?)

Spiffy wrote:

Puja wrote:Initial thought is thank f*ck we've not picked Te'o and Manu together, nor is Itoje at 6. So let's be grateful.

However, the rest of it is baffling. Wilson is not bigger than Mercer and isn't an 8. Shields is an 8, but is in no kind of form. The only possible reason to keep Youngs over Care is to keep a club 9/10 combo, which has now been broken because we're dropping Ford now that he's finally in form. We're picking Te'o, who has played 29 minutes, presumably because Manu's not got enough games under his belt? There's no back three cover on the bench and I'm baffled as to what happens if Daly gets injured. Slade at 15? May?!

I am thanking heavens for small mercies, but that is mostly because my expectations were set so abysmally low.

Puja

But you're not thanking heavens for small Mercers? (where is Banquo when you need him?)

He's watching!! He'll probably join in eventually. Maybe, we need to go a bit Shakespearean - pretend you're Puck (or Titania, if you prefer that sort of thing).

I've supported England for many years, but part of me would like them to have a mare of an Autumn if only to see the end of Eddie Jones who's head must be well and truly on the block if they don't beat SA and NZ. Australia appear to be there for the taking but therein lies the danger of underestimating them.
No mention so far of the match referee, Angus Gardner, who I consider to be one of the better refs in the game today.

Who would expect that england team to beat SA and NZ? Let alone sack the coach if they don't?

twitchy wrote:Who would expect that england team to beat SA and NZ? Let alone sack the coach if they don't?

Don't think anyone on this board believes they'll beat these two.
Even Eddie himself must have his doubts!

twitchy wrote:Who would expect that england team to beat SA and NZ? Let alone sack the coach if they don't?

I would. I actually don't think much of this NZ team. Watching some of the matches, the defense has been atrocious.

francoisfou wrote:I've supported England for many years, but part of me would like them to have a mare of an Autumn if only to see the end of Eddie Jones who's head must be well and truly on the block if they don't beat SA and NZ. Australia appear to be there for the taking but therein lies the danger of underestimating them.
No mention so far of the match referee, Angus Gardner, who I consider to be one of the better refs in the game today.

As much as I feel disillusioned by Eddie’s selection and tactics, I would never like us to ‘have a mare’. In any case, the last year has taught us that he will largely ignore any of the unpleasant lessons we take from a mare.

I’m not happy with the team, but when we take the field on Saturday, I’ll be wholeheartedly be cheering us on.

francoisfou wrote:

twitchy wrote:Who would expect that england team to beat SA and NZ? Let alone sack the coach if they don't?

Don't think anyone on this board believes they'll beat these two.
Even Eddie himself must have his doubts!

You just said you think he will be sacked if he doesn't?

Jones will presumably survive through to the RWC. I can't see the RFU sacking him whatever the results - unfortunately. That means we are theoretically observing some degree of improvement if we get beyond the group stage. To have that sort of low expectation is depressing in the extreme. At this point, we should be excited about realistic prospects of winning the thing.

Eddie is on record as expecting 2 from 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46059567

Oakboy wrote:Jones will presumably survive through to the RWC. I can't see the RFU sacking him whatever the results - unfortunately. That means we are theoretically observing some degree of improvement if we get beyond the group stage. To have that sort of low expectation is depressing in the extreme. At this point, we should be excited about realistic prospects of winning the thing.

Yeah - I agree.

Although making it out of the group is far from a given considering that Argentina and France a) seem to be improving and b) tend to perform better in a tournament format.

Which Tyler wrote:Eddie is on record as expecting 2 from 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46059567

2 would not be good. That Aussie team is the worst Aussie team I've ever seen and that's saying something! They've been consistently poor recently. Only saved by the presence of two excellent backrow forwards, Beale and Folau.

And this SA team aren't great shakes, too, if you take out Faf and WLR.

twitchy wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

twitchy wrote:Who would expect that england team to beat SA and NZ? Let alone sack the coach if they don't?

Don't think anyone on this board believes they'll beat these two.
Even Eddie himself must have his doubts!

You just said you think he will be sacked if he doesn't?

Poor results should lead to him being sacked. England have only won one of their last six matches if I remember correctly and with no improvement the RFU must show him the door, irrespective of the looming World Cup. The big question of course is who to replace him?