RugbyRebels

Underhill starts.


15. Anthony Watson

14. Semesa Rokoduguni

13. Jonathan Joseph

12. Ben Tapuai

11. Matt Banahan

10. Rhys Priestland

9. Kahn Fotuali’i

1. Beno Obano

2. Tom Dunn

3. Anthony Perenise

4. Charlie Ewels

5. Elliott Stooke

6. Matt Garvey (capt)

7. Sam Underhill

8. Taulupe Faletau

Replacements

16. Jack Walker

17. Nick Auterac

18. Scott Andrews

19. James Phillips

20. Paul Grant

21. Darren Allinson

22. Freddie Burns

23. Max Clark

Is Priestland first choice or is Burns carrying a knock?

I appreciate Blackadder having rested Max Clark so that Eddie can fully concentrate on Underhill.

Has Burns got much meaningful time yet?

Mellsblue wrote:Is Priestland first choice or is Burns carrying a knock?

Priestland has started the other games- and has played well. Freddie also looked good when he came on last week.

Surprised Watson is fit, must have been a stinger.

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

15 Ahsee Tuala
14 George North
13 Rob Horne
12 Luther Burrell
11 Tom Collins
10 Harry Mallinder
9 Nic Groom
1 Alex Waller
2 Mikey Haywood
3 Paul Hill
4 Michael Paterson
5 David Ribbans
6 Courtney Lawes (capt)
7 Jamie Gibson
8 Teimana Harrison

16 Reece Marshall
17 Campese Ma’afu
18 Kieran Brookes
19 Christian Day
20 Lewis Ludlam
21 Cobus Reinach
22 James Grayson
23 Ben Foden

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Is Priestland first choice or is Burns carrying a knock?

Priestland has started the other games-

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

Lawes at 6 again. I wonder if this is a longer term plan, perhaps on Jones' request. So many questions......

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Is Priestland first choice or is Burns carrying a knock?

Priestland has started the other games-

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

I'd thought that when he was selected for the opening game, tbh

Mellsblue wrote:Lawes at 6 again. I wonder if this is a longer term plan, perhaps on Jones' request. So many questions......

more likely shoring up after the debacle of saints first performance. Makes their lineout more flexible, but I wasn't with those giving Lawes plaudits for his 6 play, tbh.

Mitch Eadie and Tom Wood out injured, so that's probably why Lawes is at 6. That said, I recall an interview with Lawes recently where he said he prefers playing backrow.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Is Priestland first choice or is Burns carrying a knock?

Priestland has started the other games-

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

Priestland has looked pretty good to me. I couldn't argue against him being 1st choice, for now anyway.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Priestland has started the other games-

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

Priestland has looked pretty good to me. I couldn't argue against him being 1st choice, for now anyway.

yep he's played well; Freddy offers a different set of skills, and more to the party when on song. But Priestland is more predictable, generally (in a way that coaches like)

Timbo wrote:Mitch Eadie and Tom Wood out injured, so that's probably why Lawes is at 6. That said, I recall an interview with Lawes recently where he said he prefers playing backrow.

Ludlum on the bench but started when Eadie was fit. There's also Nutley.
I believe Lawes has constantly/consistently said he prefers 6.
I'm probably reading far too much in to it but I'm a bit bored today.

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:Mitch Eadie and Tom Wood out injured, so that's probably why Lawes is at 6. That said, I recall an interview with Lawes recently where he said he prefers playing backrow.

Ludlum on the bench but started when Eadie was fit. There's also Nutley.
I believe Lawes has constantly/consistently said he prefers 6.
I'm probably reading far too much in to it but I'm a bit bored today.

He may prefer 6, and indeed prob is worried about his long term England prospects for starting at lock (though he has looked increasingly an excellent candidate, notwithstanding the quality of competition there)_...but he is imo a much better lock than 6.

Timbo wrote:Mitch Eadie and Tom Wood out injured, so that's probably why Lawes is at 6. That said, I recall an interview with Lawes recently where he said he prefers playing backrow.

Prefers is one thing, but he's not good enough to play there internationally. I'd be happier seeing Ludlam play myself, but hey ho.

I've given up trying to predict what will happen in this Prem season - all of my guesses so far have been utterly wrong. What do other people think?

Puja

It's hard to say on the Lawes at 6 thing. After all he did play very well, while pretty much playing 6, for England recently. But I share your reservations.

People said Itoje suffered from the role, even though he didn't really do the role anyway. I just thought he was playing lock, but not playing particularly well. Or did he suffer due to doing a share of Lawes's work?

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:Mitch Eadie and Tom Wood out injured, so that's probably why Lawes is at 6. That said, I recall an interview with Lawes recently where he said he prefers playing backrow.

Prefers is one thing, but he's not good enough to play there internationally. I'd be happier seeing Ludlam play myself, but hey ho.

I've given up trying to predict what will happen in this Prem season - all of my guesses so far have been utterly wrong. What do other people think?

Puja

I agree. All of your guesses have been utterly wrong.

Mikey Brown wrote:It's hard to say on the Lawes at 6 thing. After all he did play very well, while pretty much playing 6, for England recently. But I share your reservations.

People said Itoje suffered from the role, even though he didn't really do the role anyway. I just thought he was playing lock, but not playing particularly well. Or did he suffer due to doing a share of Lawes's work?

Lawes packed down on the side of the scrum. Itoje was the one tasked with the flanker role around the pitch.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Priestland has started the other games-

...and no, Burns hasn;t had much time. Which is a shame.

This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

I'd thought that when he was selected for the opening game, tbh

Burns missed most of pre-season with concussion, and only just got through the GRTP protocol in time for the first match.
Rhys has also played well, and we know that Todd will given players a second shot if they show well... He's also a fan of rotation - see Louw&Clarke getting the weekend off, no noises of any injuries there

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: This is why I asked. It's getting to the point where you'd think that Priestland is currently seen as first choice.

I'd thought that when he was selected for the opening game, tbh

Burns missed most of pre-season with concussion, and only just got through the GRTP protocol in time for the first match.
Rhys has also played well, and we know that Todd will given players a second shot if they show well... He's also a fan of rotation - see Louw&Clarke getting the weekend off, no noises of any injuries there

fair enough, good knowledge

(also good move to rest Louw....looks twice the player after a bit of a break)

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:It's hard to say on the Lawes at 6 thing. After all he did play very well, while pretty much playing 6, for England recently. But I share your reservations.

People said Itoje suffered from the role, even though he didn't really do the role anyway. I just thought he was playing lock, but not playing particularly well. Or did he suffer due to doing a share of Lawes's work?

Lawes packed down on the side of the scrum. Itoje was the one tasked with the flanker role around the pitch.

Puja

I thought we rather saw the locks and blindside roll mixed up, or at least it simple depended on who was where

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:It's hard to say on the Lawes at 6 thing. After all he did play very well, while pretty much playing 6, for England recently. But I share your reservations.

People said Itoje suffered from the role, even though he didn't really do the role anyway. I just thought he was playing lock, but not playing particularly well. Or did he suffer due to doing a share of Lawes's work?

Lawes packed down on the side of the scrum. Itoje was the one tasked with the flanker role around the pitch.

Puja

I thought we rather saw the locks and blindside roll mixed up, or at least it simple depended on who was where

me too, I was going to be picky and ask what lead Puja to that statement.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Lawes packed down on the side of the scrum. Itoje was the one tasked with the flanker role around the pitch.

Puja

I thought we rather saw the locks and blindside roll mixed up, or at least it simple depended on who was where

me too, I was going to be picky and ask what lead Puja to that statement.

If you were going to picky you'd ask, and then edit it to ask something else.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought we rather saw the locks and blindside roll mixed up, or at least it simple depended on who was where

me too, I was going to be picky and ask what lead Puja to that statement.

If you were going to picky you'd ask, and then edit it to ask something else.

you say edit, I say give due consideration

Lawes at 6 makes room for Pato and Ribbans in the row, so I can certainly get behind that. Don't think the balance is quite right with Gibson at 7 though, would prefer Ludlam there instead.