RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: sub 2sec rucks..

this is the bit Wales struggled with...

Lol yeah.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: sub 2sec rucks..

this is the bit Wales struggled with...

Well they have a 9 who voluntarily slows his own ball

Out of interest, given all the press interest about Spencer flying in, what's the bet that Eddie doesn't actually bring him off the bench at any point, even if we're comfortably winning? Or, even better, he doesn't name him in the XXIII at all on the basis that Ford's enough cover? It'd be peak Eddie to double down on his decision that we didn't need a third scrum half.

Puja

Puja wrote:Out of interest, given all the press interest about Spencer flying in, what's the bet that Eddie doesn't actually bring him off the bench at any point, even if we're comfortably winning? Or, even better, he doesn't name him in the XXIII at all on the basis that Ford's enough cover? It'd be peak Eddie to double down on his decision that we didn't need a third scrum half.

Puja

Yes, I would not be that surprised by an extra forward on the bench.

Oakboy wrote: Yes, I would not be that surprised by an extra forward on the bench.

Nowell to replace Joseph?

Puja wrote:Out of interest, given all the press interest about Spencer flying in, what's the bet that Eddie doesn't actually bring him off the bench at any point, even if we're comfortably winning? Or, even better, he doesn't name him in the XXIII at all on the basis that Ford's enough cover? It'd be peak Eddie to double down on his decision that we didn't need a third scrum half.

So... Ford covering SH... from the bench...

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Out of interest, given all the press interest about Spencer flying in, what's the bet that Eddie doesn't actually bring him off the bench at any point, even if we're comfortably winning? Or, even better, he doesn't name him in the XXIII at all on the basis that Ford's enough cover? It'd be peak Eddie to double down on his decision that we didn't need a third scrum half.

So... Ford covering SH... from the bench...

I didn't say I was in favour, just that it'd be on-brand for Eddie.

Puja

Don’t think it a daft idea. In fact would be in favour of it. As Puja said, chances are Spencer won’t be gifted game time from the bench, then we might as well use it to strengthen our options elsewhere..... though not Piers

p/d wrote:Don’t think it a daft idea. In fact would be in favour of it. As Puja said, chances are Spencer won’t be gifted game time from the bench, then we might as well use it to strengthen our options elsewhere..... though not Piers

Really? I think it's bananas - what happens if Youngs goes down injured in the first minute? Are we really happy playing an entire game with Ford at 9 at any point, let alone the RWC final?!

Puja

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:Don’t think it a daft idea. In fact would be in favour of it. As Puja said, chances are Spencer won’t be gifted game time from the bench, then we might as well use it to strengthen our options elsewhere..... though not Piers

Really? I think it's bananas - what happens if Youngs goes down injured in the first minute? Are we really happy playing an entire game with Ford at 9 at any point, let alone the RWC final?!

Puja

Why not? It's only the most specialised role going across the whole 80

Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Beasties wrote:Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Out of interest who did Burt leave out who should have be nailed on starter? Plus which players has Eddie taken a gamble on and come up trumps.

There was quite a lot of noise about wasted caps on the likes of Robshaw, Brown, et al and huge issues of inexperience. But then we’re in the World Cup final so I guess Mr Jones might just have been right. Who’d have thought it.

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Out of interest who did Burt leave out who should have be nailed on starter? Plus which players has Eddie taken a gamble on and come up trumps.

Manu. He was injured but Burt made a point of saying he wouldn’t pick him even though he couldn’t anyway.

EJ has gambled on Heinz and Curry/Underhill as a combo.

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Out of interest who did Burt leave out who should have be nailed on starter? Plus which players has Eddie taken a gamble on and come up trumps.

I was more meaning that the players Burt had available weren't of the required standard, not really his fault I grant you, but then we had the whole cough Burgess fiasco too.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:There was quite a lot of noise about wasted caps on the likes of Robshaw, Brown, et al and huge issues of inexperience. But then we’re in the World Cup final so I guess Mr Jones might just have been right. Who’d have thought it.

Quite. If, say, two players like Curry and Underhill, come in and excel that writes off the experience claim. Let's face it, had Jones found a young SH, the caps total would also have plummeted with Youngs's departure.

I think, these days, that there are less easy games anyway. Today's players with 20 - 30 caps have had as much or more quality time v top opposition as yesterday's players with 50 - 60.

Garces

Beasties wrote:Garces

riddikulus.

Skeen is the TMO.......I suppose it’s not Jonker, but it is Skeen.

I still struggle with the whole injury replacement. We picked a squad for a tournament, we chose not to take a third scrum half, that is our loss. It kinda makes the limit of 31 players pointless. OK the replacements haven't been involved in the training so it is still a disadvantage but we chose to gamble and it backfired. I know you can then go into the argument if you have a week scrum only take one of each front rower, get them injured and go uncontested all tournament but the rules can legislate naming 3 players who can play each role. I also disagree with injury replacements not being like for like. I forget which way round it was but Wales got an injury replacement and it was either a back for a forward or a forward for a back. You've picked your squad and squad shape, why should you be allowed to change it. I guess coaches know the rules going into the tournament so will pick accordingly, I just don't particularly like it.

I predicted SA to win before it started. Now, I have never wanted to be wrong so much. As ever, Jones is right about everything if he keeps winning.

Our discipline has improved immeasurably during this RWC. I suspect it will need to go up another notch for the final. SA will be mega-confrontational. It's their way of playing and, by definition, they believe improving their game means upping the confrontation. They have to improve a lot from their SF performance to win it. Our first aim has to be keeping 15 players on the pitch for 80 despite provocation.

JellyHead wrote:I still struggle with the whole injury replacement. We picked a squad for a tournament, we chose not to take a third scrum half, that is our loss. It kinda makes the limit of 31 players pointless. OK the replacements haven't been involved in the training so it is still a disadvantage but we chose to gamble and it backfired. I know you can then go into the argument if you have a week scrum only take one of each front rower, get them injured and go uncontested all tournament but the rules can legislate naming 3 players who can play each role. I also disagree with injury replacements not being like for like. I forget which way round it was but Wales got an injury replacement and it was either a back for a forward or a forward for a back. You've picked your squad and squad shape, why should you be allowed to change it. I guess coaches know the rules going into the tournament so will pick accordingly, I just don't particularly like it.

Before it started, I suggested squads of 33. I think that is the right number IF you are going to also say 'no replacements'.

I want to see good rugby but I don't want to see teams gaming the system

Forcing players to be replaced permanently is important here (We can't keep swapping Nowell in and out depending on injury)

I also think that players who get replaced shouldn't be allowed to go play for domestic teams the next weekend, that feels hugely questionable

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Out of interest who did Burt leave out who should have be nailed on starter? Plus which players has Eddie taken a gamble on and come up trumps.

I was more meaning that the players Burt had available weren't of the required standard, not really his fault I grant you, but then we had the whole cough Burgess fiasco too.

Fair do’s. and I agree. Would also suggest the current side isn’t far off what most had wanted during the days Hartley was keeping George on the bench - and LCD out of the squad - Shields drafted in ahead of the likes of Curry and then the lock playing 6 ‘experiment’. Care and Youngs dominating the 9 shirt only to go to the WC with an average Kiwi club player.

Don’t see Underhill and Curry as a gamble, more bleed’in obvious. His gambles are Daly at fb, taking only two 9’s and a unproven/injured back 3 players. These still could be the areas that see us fall at the final hurdle

We got a WC final in 2007, by playing one more game than we have in this tournament, and that squad hardly lacked in experience.

Beasties wrote:

p/d wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just wondering about the old sage that WC winners have to have 30,000 caps in the team. Has anyone done the maths for Eng class of 2019? Eddie jettisoned a huge number of caps just prior to the tournament. Burt used to bang on about it endlessly whilst ignoring the simple truth that in order to actually win it you need quality players as a basic minimum.

Out of interest who did Burt leave out who should have be nailed on starter? Plus which players has Eddie taken a gamble on and come up trumps.

I was more meaning that the players Burt had available weren't of the required standard, not really his fault I grant you, but then we had the whole cough Burgess fiasco too.

Kept Burrell out didnt he? Absolutley correctly Burrell was disgusted.

I thought Burrell could play - but he seemed to fall off. Didnt he get sheppards crooked by Eddie because of his defence later on?