RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I know I argued with you that is doesn't particularly matter what shirts/roles they have when paired with Underhill, but this does seem weird now. I know Ludlam plays 7 too, but obviously is more suited to 6 of the two of them.

I figured Wilson at 7 was just a systems check but it's starting to look like another weird EJ quirk alright.

Does he remind you of Lewis Moody at all ?

With Sam Underhill playing the Joe Worsley role?

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

Mellsblue wrote: I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Renniks wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Personally I'd go the other way

Mako and Cole

With Sinckler coming on at 40 (knowing you can replace him back if there is an injury)
And Marler coming on later in the game

Peej wrote:Why in God's name is Billy playing again?

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

It's better than he coming off the bench with 30 to go, and tearing it after 20, when we lose a man for subbing Marler back on. Better to start him and get 40 out of him to start, than bring him on and then off again.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

Mikey Brown wrote:"You might choose to offload before contact. A pass, if you like"

How much do these guys get paid?

Beasties wrote:It's a long long time since I've been able to sit down to watch a match live never mind the buildup. Having watched 5 mins of the bollocks they talk in the buildup I won't be doing it again.