RugbyRebels

Back playing for Christmas and a push for 6 nations 2022 much more likely I’d suggest.

If I’m looking for a positive side, difficult I know, then Launchbury and Willis will be able to support, push etc each other through rehab.

Fack.

Re Umaga, his "defence" has dismayed me at times to the point where I'd given up on him resisting the progress of Atkinson. But in the last two games he appears to have had a word with himself and there are signs of improvement. Low bar though.

Beasties wrote:Re Umaga, his "defence" has dismayed me at times to the point where I'd given up on him resisting the progress of Atkinson. But in the last two games he appears to have had a word with himself and there are signs of improvement. Low bar though.

He seems willing to stand in the way of virtually anyone. He's just not yet very good at stopping them. Needs to start holding on like Ford.

fivepointer wrote:Surprised there's much of a debate tbh. For me, Smith is the superior player and far further along in his development than Umaga. I dont see it as a close call.

Smith is probably the current best 10 in the PL. He is in a great vein of form at present and has all the FH skills. His maturity for a 22 year old is fantastic. Simmonds/Ford are right up there too - there is not a lot in it. All three are better all-round FHs than Farrell. Umaga is clearly talented when in top form, but is inconsistent and further down the learning curve. He has the makings.

Great veins of form must not include the game just played

This is a very strange hill to die on. The last game might not have been Smith’s finest but it wasn’t notably poor and more to the point, it was light years ahead of some of the genuinely awful performances from Umaga this season.

It was pretty poor, certainly for the talent. And if it's hyperbole to say it was poor it'd sure as shit be OTT to suggest that game was part of a great run of form for the 'current best 10 in the PL'

There can only be one explanation for persevering so strongly with an opinion no one seems to agree with ... Oakboy or jngf has stolen your login.

Scrumhead wrote:There can only be one explanation for persevering so strongly with an opinion no one seems to agree with ... Oakboy or jngf has stolen your login.

Now, now. I'd remind you that opinion on Jones appears to be rather different away from this board so 'an opinion no one seems to agree with' is not quite as accurate as you imply.

As for the FH debate, WT and I rarely agree on much. He says he'd have Simmonds ahead of Smith and Umaga at present but that Smith may move up that ranking by the next RWC. I'd agree with that. Umaga is definitely third in that trio, IMO. Mind you, it's all irrelevant. Jones appears to have the FH ranking as Farrell, Ford, Umaga, Smith, Simmonds, I'd suggest, so we are debating only the 3rd cab off the rank (for as long as Premiership/European form counts for sweet FA).

Sorry - I couldn’t resist.

We don’t really know where anyone beyond Farrell and Ford sits in Eddie’s thinking TBH. Hopefully we get some more insight over the summer games.

Personally, I prefer Smith, but here’s no doubt that Simmonds has played in the bigger games and shown up very well. I have no doubt he’s ready to be a test starter. Smith could be, but I’m less sure.

I'm not remotely convinced any of Umaga, Simmonds or Smith are good enough for England, and they might never get a shot which I'd be fine with. Or they might get a shot which I'd also be fine with, with the short term caveat if the summer games go ahead they'll likely be a lousy barometer, it might prove as useful as the Churchill Cup showing Jordan Crane was an interesting option at lock

So you are wedded to Ford/Farrell?

I take your point that a good game against the USA or Canada isn’t going to be that informative, but they have to start somewhere.

Wedded no.

But if England is about picking the best players then that's Ford. Ford could easily play another 4-5 seasons by which time the current dashing young trio might find an England career has passed them by. Or maybe one of them gets a chance and takes it, stuff happens.

Mostly I just don't think any of them 'have' to start, they could, but that's much more about them than England

Scrumhead wrote:I take your point that a good game against the USA or Canada isn’t going to be that informative, but they have to start somewhere.

Yup, a Saxons fixture against Scotland A, or a full test against USA or Canada isn't particularly informative in and of itself - as ever with these matches, it's about training outside the comfort zone, executing a different game plan, individual moments under increased pressure and playing in new partnerships. But it's also a good stepping stone to build confidence and gradually acclimatise to higher stakes, especially for those whose clubs aren't that involved in the high stakes club matches.
The ideal route into the first squad for a young player is to start with essentially saxons matches; if you can get 3-4 appearances in against these guys or the Baabaas; then that just helps settle things a bit; then you can bench against Italy, Scotland, whichever 2nd tier nation comes over in that Autumn. You can be up to 6-8 caps before you see one of the big boys; and can start getting starts against Italy / Samoa, and benches against Wales / Ireland - ideally those starts would be alongside an established senior in your unit to hold you hand a little.

So not particularly informative in and of themselves (excepting the players who shit the bed with this much step up) but a really good way of introducing new players to touring life, new team mates, training expectations at international level, and just generally getting their feet under the table. Way way better than something like a 1998 tour to hell and being thrown under the bus.

Agreed.

To be fair, Smith’s career really started with him being thrown in at the deep end and on the whole, he’s done very well. I’d back him to make the step-up again.

Simmonds, for example, had a much easier introduction with being gradually eased in to succeed Steenson. That said, I don’t think he would struggle with the transition to test rugby.

I’m actually in agreement with Digby that Ford is currently our best 10 and could conceivably stay that way for some time yet. However, the rumour is that he may be the sacrificial lamb from Eddie’s review and it’s a good time to blood Smith, Simmonds or both.

We may not learn much from these types of fixtures, but we learn nothing at all if we just stick with the existing personnel.

Was anybody actually suggesting Smith/Simmonds jump ahead of Ford/Farrell? I thought this was just discussing who we look at with those two (presumably) with the Lions or rested this summer. They're obviously a mile ahead of Umaga in their development. And yes Smith has clearly been in great form for a while now, whether or not he had a great game at the weekend doesn't change the big picture much. If Umaga continues to play well for a sustained period then brilliant.

Mikey Brown wrote:Was anybody actually suggesting Smith/Simmonds jump ahead of Ford/Farrell? I thought this was just discussing who we look at with those two (presumably) with the Lions or rested this summer. They're obviously a mile ahead of Umaga in their development. And yes Smith has clearly been in great form for a while now, whether or not he had a great game at the weekend doesn't change the big picture much. If Umaga continues to play well for a sustained period then brilliant.

Well, exactly. That's put this debate to bed, then.

Mind you, I yearn for that period (when was it - 3/4 years ago?) when Cipriani was our best FH by miles but a certain Australian con-merchant (sorry, but he is) kept picking bloody Farrell. I said at the time it was all about the team ceiling and it still is. So, taking your main point, I'd love to see Smith/Simmonds ahead of Farrell/Ford for a period just to see if we can get the team ceiling up a notch.

why to get the team ceiling would you pick an inferior looking player?

granted he does some pretty things on TV, but that's being confused more than seems sensible with being a sensible option

Jones has almost exclusively played Ford at 10.