RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. We did, but that was understandable due to Curry’s injury.

It’s a lot less acceptable when we could have planned against it.

I thought last Saturday was bad planning; there was no specialist back row then either. You should always plan with injury in mind, not just 'finishing'. Eddie's argument would be that if a back row is injured early, Itoje moves back.

Lol.

Is there an element of scenario playing here with this selection?

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Wilson must also be hurt. Not liking Billy having to go 80 again. Looks like Francis is being given a real shot, so wondering what real strategy in midfield is. Lawtoje, aargh.

Itoje to no8 after 60 mins. Obvs.

This selection is manna from JNGF heaven

fivepointer wrote:Is there an element of scenario playing here with this selection?

I've heard this theory before.

Obvs had Nowell been fit, he'd have been wearing Singleton's bench jersey

Backrow is the obvious talking point… If it was Wilson starting, I'd have much less issue with Singleton benching as backrow cover --- It's playing as if it was RWC rules, and that's probably an interesting thing to be trying in warm-ups --- My bigger issue is that Billy is now going to be playing 80 again, and we can't afford an injury there!

I'm actually really happy with the majority of choices there though, knowing who is involved in the 31 makes me much much less worried about exclusions such as Watson

And I like the look of pretty much every unit we have there (See above for views on Backrow)

I suggested similar game playing in the 6N, Eddie using a series to try and lock himself into his likely 31 at the time, and work around injuries within the squad, until it got too far, and even then replacements tended to only get 5 minutes.

Banquo wrote:Wilson must also be hurt. Not liking Billy having to go 80 again. Looks like Francis is being given a real shot, so wondering what real strategy in midfield is. Lawtoje, aargh.

Lawes has done pretty well at 6

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:Wilson must also be hurt. Not liking Billy having to go 80 again. Looks like Francis is being given a real shot, so wondering what real strategy in midfield is. Lawtoje, aargh.

Lawes has done pretty well at 6

yay, I love 'pretty well' as an endorsement of an international player. And that's just the one 'pretty well' at that in an England shirt. Do you genuinely support him as an international 6, one who could or should be starting there regularly?

I'd prefer "done pretty well to get picked at 6 after previous outings"

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:Wilson must also be hurt. Not liking Billy having to go 80 again. Looks like Francis is being given a real shot, so wondering what real strategy in midfield is. Lawtoje, aargh.

Lawes has done pretty well at 6

Eh. He's done well at being a third lock who just happens to be wearing 6, leaving a lot of work to the other flanker. It's sort of worked before with Curry there and has failed miserably with a less pure 7 like Robshaw or Underhill. I'm not sure how well it'll work with Ludlam.

Frankly, I thought the idea had been shelved after Samoa took the piss out of us at the breakdown the other year, but I guess it will make a difference having the hard-working BillyV at 8, as opposed the hardly-working Hughes.

Puja

Obviously Wales looked suspect in their set piece on Sunday, and having alllll those locks helps with that…

Roof closed makes him less useful though, as you'd assume the game will be more open.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Don't you think we might have had a change in plan? And could see a playmaking 12?

Could happen...

I'm living in hope. We only moved away from it for two international windows, the latter of which wasn't a resounding success, and the last serious match saw Ford come off the bench to save the day. It wouldn't be a massive change of tack.

It's possible I'm in denial.

Stom - the dream is still alive with Ford/Francis being picked again!

Puja

Danno wrote:I'd prefer "done pretty well to get picked at 6 after previous outings"

well yes

Puja wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Don't you think we might have had a change in plan? And could see a playmaking 12?

Could happen...

I'm living in hope. We only moved away from it for two international windows, the latter of which wasn't a resounding success, and the last serious match saw Ford come off the bench to save the day. It wouldn't be a massive change of tack.

It's possible I'm in denial.

Stom - the dream is still alive with Ford/Francis being picked again!

Puja

Yeah, it could be. I think we look a lot better with this setup...

But it's really hard to judge as we always look better with Ford at 10.

You see it's the hope that kills me. Eddie has done the ruthless thing before. Dropping Robshaw, Haskell, Cole (not sure why he's back, but he went for a while), Care etc in the past. I'm just wondering if he can do it to Farrell...

Raggs wrote:You see it's the hope that kills me. Eddie has done the ruthless thing before. Dropping Robshaw, Haskell, Cole (not sure why he's back, but he went for a while), Care etc in the past. I'm just wondering if he can do it to Farrell...

Not sure there can be much hope when Faz is the squad skipper? ....if indeed he was named as such?

Raggs wrote:You see it's the hope that kills me. Eddie has done the ruthless thing before. Dropping Robshaw, Haskell, Cole (not sure why he's back, but he went for a while), Care etc in the past. I'm just wondering if he can do it to Farrell...

I think you're onto something there. EJ made a real statement by dropping certain established players.

Robshaw and Care buckled under that pressure and decided to get themselves into really good form, whereas Cole stuck to his guns and continued playing like shit. I think Eddie really respects that kind of belligerence in a player.

Hughes made a slightly different error.

Apart from boosting the bank accounts, what is the point of the two games against Wales? Heinz could have been tried earlier - more or less the only gain?

If we didn’t have warm-ups, all of the NH teams would be going in very cold in comparison to SH teams playing in the Rugby Championship.

I don’t love some of the decisions Eddie has made, but I think there is some merit to trying combinations to give us as many options as possible in a tournament scenario.

Ludlam is more of a 7 than a 6 so I’m sure he’ll do well. My worry is the lack of cover on the bench.

Had hoped to see Watson get a run at 15. If he is to cover that slot in the RWC he will need game time. Since he is not in, Jones may see Nowell or McConnochie as a FB, where both have played some club rugby this season.

Spiffy wrote:Had hoped to see Watson get a run at 15. If he is to cover that slot in the RWC he will need game time. Since he is not in, Jones may see Nowell or McConnochie as a FB, where both have played some club rugby this season.

? I think Jones sees Daly as his 15, with Watson as back up.

Oakboy wrote:Apart from boosting the bank accounts, what is the point of the two games against Wales? Heinz could have been tried earlier - more or less the only gain?

well its solidified Ludlam into the squad for a start. He's tried a number of new combos which have promise. JJ and Watson get some much needed miles in their legs, and LCD gets some decent game time.

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Had hoped to see Watson get a run at 15. If he is to cover that slot in the RWC he will need game time. Since he is not in, Jones may see Nowell or McConnochie as a FB, where both have played some club rugby this season.

? I think Jones sees Daly as his 15, with Watson as back up.

Yes. That's why I talked about Watson covering FB. He still needs game time at 15 if he's going to do this, even off the bench.

If Ford has a blinder on Saturday he’ll surely have cemented his place as England’s best fly half, so where will that leave captain Farrell, as it seems to me that he’ll have his work cut out to make the first choice XV as a centre?