RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

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?

As what fourth choice starting in a warm up game? Yes! Wilson, Curry/Underhill (if they play together); Ludlum and then Lawes, or Itoje (both of whom have played lots at 6). And yes Lawes has been ‘pretty well’ at 6 once in his entire career? Seriously? Fucks sake man cheer up!

You know that half empty glass can be refilled yeah?

Or knocked over and smashed.

Had hoped to see Watson at fb. Suppose it is time to accept that Daly is our first choice. How thrilling

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
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?

As what fourth choice starting in a warm up game? Yes! Wilson, Curry/Underhill (if they play together); Ludlum and then Lawes, or Itoje (both of whom have played lots at 6). And yes Lawes has been ‘pretty well’ at 6 once in his entire career? Seriously? Fucks sake man cheer up!

You know that half empty glass can be refilled yeah?

Its not 'cheer up' ..I'm just thinking there are and have been better 6 options, and have been for a while; and I said once in an England shirt, and that's being kind. Not sure going round a buoy again that hasn't worked before a fair few times actually achieves. Perhaps you enjoy banging yoir head against a brick wall? Me, no ta, hence my aversion to it. You didn't even answer the question
Not sure what that self help meme in the last sentence is about- not sure why you are so aerated over a comment on lawtoje.

If Lawes has another good game at 6 on Saturday perhaps lawtoje can be split into two words - Itoje at 6 still being the no go option? (but at 8 we’ll that’s another matter entirely )

It doesn’t matter how well Ford plays. I’d bet my house on it.

Mikey Brown wrote:It doesn’t matter how well Ford plays. I’d bet my house on it.

lol. He'll get 6 out of 10 from Alex Shaw and a comment that he always gets unfairly treated and plays well for England.

Farrell will get an 8 off the bench for his "leadership and passion" as he flies up out of the line and misses his tackles once again.

Lawes is only down for 1 penalty on espn, but I'm sure he gave away more? There was the nonsense with AWJ, then I'm sure he gave away at least one more with sealing off at a breakdown?

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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?

As what fourth choice starting in a warm up game? Yes! Wilson, Curry/Underhill (if they play together); Ludlum and then Lawes, or Itoje (both of whom have played lots at 6). And yes Lawes has been ‘pretty well’ at 6 once in his entire career? Seriously? Fucks sake man cheer up!

You know that half empty glass can be refilled yeah?

Its not 'cheer up' ..I'm just thinking there are and have been better 6 options, and have been for a while; and I said once in an England shirt, and that's being kind. Not sure going round a buoy again that hasn't worked before a fair few times actually achieves. Perhaps you enjoy banging yoir head against a brick wall? Me, no ta, hence my aversion to it. You didn't even answer the question
Not sure what that self help meme in the last sentence is about- not sure why you are so aerated over a comment on lawtoje.

Yes I do support him as an international 6. At the same time that doesn’t mean he’d be my choice at 6. And he’s done it more than once, but hey ho. Underhill is injured, Curry is injured, so is it an issue? No, not really, but ‘aargh’.

There’s positives in there too considering how good a player Lawes has become, which does compensate for the huge failings at 6. It is possible to look at positives rather than accentuating the negative.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
As what fourth choice starting in a warm up game? Yes! Wilson, Curry/Underhill (if they play together); Ludlum and then Lawes, or Itoje (both of whom have played lots at 6). And yes Lawes has been ‘pretty well’ at 6 once in his entire career? Seriously? Fucks sake man cheer up!

You know that half empty glass can be refilled yeah?

Its not 'cheer up' ..I'm just thinking there are and have been better 6 options, and have been for a while; and I said once in an England shirt, and that's being kind. Not sure going round a buoy again that hasn't worked before a fair few times actually achieves. Perhaps you enjoy banging yoir head against a brick wall? Me, no ta, hence my aversion to it. You didn't even answer the question
Not sure what that self help meme in the last sentence is about- not sure why you are so aerated over a comment on lawtoje.

Yes I do support him as an international 6. At the same time that doesn’t mean he’d be my choice at 6. And he’s done it more than once, but hey ho. Underhill is injured, Curry is injured, so is it an issue? No, not really, but ‘aargh’.

There’s positives in there too considering how good a player Lawes has become, which does compensate for the huge failings at 6. It is possible to look at positives rather than accentuating the negative.

He's a great lock, so is Itoje (and both have been for some time)- but his performances at 6 in an England shirt have not been international standard 6 imo. I see positives when they are there; is it so bad to want the England team to be the best it can be, and learn from previous mistakes ? And if by accentuating the negative you mean...'aargh'...so be it . I do admit to Eeyore tendencies having - as Raggs said- being ground down by unfulfilled hope!

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Its not 'cheer up' ..I'm just thinking there are and have been better 6 options, and have been for a while; and I said once in an England shirt, and that's being kind. Not sure going round a buoy again that hasn't worked before a fair few times actually achieves. Perhaps you enjoy banging yoir head against a brick wall? Me, no ta, hence my aversion to it. You didn't even answer the question
Not sure what that self help meme in the last sentence is about- not sure why you are so aerated over a comment on lawtoje.

Yes I do support him as an international 6. At the same time that doesn’t mean he’d be my choice at 6. And he’s done it more than once, but hey ho. Underhill is injured, Curry is injured, so is it an issue? No, not really, but ‘aargh’.

There’s positives in there too considering how good a player Lawes has become, which does compensate for the huge failings at 6. It is possible to look at positives rather than accentuating the negative.

He's a great lock, so is Itoje (and both have been for some time)- but his performances at 6 in an England shirt have not been international standard 6 imo. I see positives when they are there; is it so bad to want the England team to be the best it can be, and learn from previous mistakes ? And if by accentuating the negative you mean...'aargh'...so be it

Dude, it is a warm up game. The alternative is Wilson, who may or may not have a knock seeing as we haven’t seen him yet. Plus Lawes is playing alongside his extremely inexperienced team mate in a common club combo, which can only be a good thing for Ludlum. There’s a lot of context that indicates Lawes at 6 for this game is a good decision.

And that’s aside from him being a bloody good player and that he has played well at 6.

I do get that it’s the hope that kills you side mind.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Yes I do support him as an international 6. At the same time that doesn’t mean he’d be my choice at 6. And he’s done it more than once, but hey ho. Underhill is injured, Curry is injured, so is it an issue? No, not really, but ‘aargh’.

There’s positives in there too considering how good a player Lawes has become, which does compensate for the huge failings at 6. It is possible to look at positives rather than accentuating the negative.

He's a great lock, so is Itoje (and both have been for some time)- but his performances at 6 in an England shirt have not been international standard 6 imo. I see positives when they are there; is it so bad to want the England team to be the best it can be, and learn from previous mistakes ? And if by accentuating the negative you mean...'aargh'...so be it

Dude, it is a warm up game. The alternative is Wilson, who may or may not have a knock seeing as we haven’t seen him yet. Plus Lawes is playing alongside his extremely inexperienced team mate in a common club combo, which can only be a good thing for Ludlum. There’s a lot of context that indicates Lawes at 6 for this game is a good decision.

And that’s aside from him being a bloody good player and that he has played well at 6. Negative hyperbole aside.

You lost me at 'dude'. . I get the point, but it frustrates me, even with the context, which I also get.

Wilson has a minor rib injury: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/sport/ot ... es-3214966

So the alternative to Lawes is Itoje then.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:So the alternative to Lawes is Itoje then.

or kvesic w Ludlam at 6. the original point I was making is that I don't like the Lawtoje combo, irrespective of how we get there. Obviously its not ideal that three of your backrow are injured.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:So the alternative to Lawes is Itoje then.

or kvesic w Ludlam at 6. the original point I was making is that I don't like the Lawtoje combo, irrespective of how we get there. Obviously its not ideal that three of your backrow are injured.

I’m not really bothered by it to start with. Less so when the alternative is a bare cupboard.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:So the alternative to Lawes is Itoje then.

or kvesic w Ludlam at 6. the original point I was making is that I don't like the Lawtoje combo, irrespective of how we get there. Obviously its not ideal that three of your backrow are injured.

I’m not really bothered by it to start with. Less so when the alternative is a bare cupboard.

There is that- if Ludlam or Billy should get a knock........

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: or kvesic w Ludlam at 6. the original point I was making is that I don't like the Lawtoje combo, irrespective of how we get there. Obviously its not ideal that three of your backrow are injured.

I’m not really bothered by it to start with. Less so when the alternative is a bare cupboard.

There is that- if Ludlam or Billy should get a knock........

Especially a minor issue, 2/3 weeks out. Then you’d have almost everyone down with niggles and questions over being fit in time, but should be fit for some/all of the tournament.

Banquo wrote:

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.

With the number of injuries, I cannot see the point in naming the 31 so early AND playing these two matches. An extra fortnight's rest followed by the announcement (considering ONLY players fully fit) would have made more sense. Or, at least leave the announcement and only pick fit players in their proper positions even if some then missed the cut.

Trying to pretend that Singleton on the bench to cover the flankers is good practice for the tournament (Borthwick quoted saying that today) is absolute bollix. Playing Billy V in anything other than a full-steam game with the 1st XV is also bollix. It would amuse the Welsh no end to see him limp off tomorrow.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

With the number of injuries, I cannot see the point in naming the 31 so early AND playing these two matches. An extra fortnight's rest followed by the announcement (considering ONLY players fully fit) would have made more sense. Or, at least leave the announcement and only pick fit players in their proper positions even if some then missed the cut.

Trying to pretend that Singleton on the bench to cover the flankers is good practice for the tournament (Borthwick quoted saying that today) is absolute bollix. Playing Billy V in anything other than a full-steam game with the 1st XV is also bollix. It would amuse the Welsh no end to see him limp off tomorrow.

Can’t go into a World Cup without actual Rugby on your legs. I do agree on the picking players from outside the squad if needed, but equally see the point about prepping for the reality of being in the World Cup and losing players at short notice, whilst not necessarily needing to replace. I think it’s a bit OTT, but see the point. I am very bothered re Billy tho.

francoisfou wrote: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?

Perhaps OF could appear as flanker cover on the bench?

< he said facetiously - then looked at the team for tomorrow and it all makes rather terrifying sense >

loudnconfident wrote:

francoisfou wrote: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?

Perhaps OF could appear as flanker cover on the bench?

< he said facetiously - then looked at the team for tomorrow and it all makes rather terrifying sense >

I've been saying this for ages. He's big, physical, hits hard, good over the ball and comparatively very quick. Can do the loose-cannon defensive thing (as part of that system) without having to worry about dog-legs and organising the midfield.

His link play and distribution would also be perfectly adequate for a forward.

Never hurts to have an extra goal-kicking option either.

have they resolved if McConnochie is an injury risk?

Digby wrote:have they resolved if McConnochie is an injury risk?

Latest BBC has EJ saying “We're confident he might recover”

So, no idea?!

Renniks wrote:

Digby wrote:have they resolved if McConnochie is an injury risk?

Latest BBC has EJ saying “We're confident he might recover”

So, no idea?!

I'm surprised the latest Beeb update doesn't have Rowell down as the coach