RugbyRebels

Warrior85 wrote:I think what it's shown us is that tuilagi and Billy need to get form/fitness consistently. As on top form they are our world class ball carriers.

Itoje needs a rest

If Farrell isn't kicking like he did a couple of seasons ago then, for me, shouldn't be in the side. Ford or hopefully Smith are better 10s and Slade is a more creative 10/centre.

padprop wrote:1) Simmonds isn't an international 8, but could yet be an international 7.

I tend to agree. However, I think he can be used as an 8 in another system/a game plan that suits his style.

2) Farrell isn't even in the top 3 best kickers in the six nations

Farrell's kicking was poor all tournament, but that is an anomaly. Ordinarily, he would still be up there among the best kickers in the tournament. He's Top 3 by reputation which has always been somewhat overblown. Top 5 is more realistic. However, given that this is one of the primary arguments for picking him, it does raise other questions.

3) We've lost our biggest advantage over other nations - Depth and impact of the bench, for a weird mix of unproven players and old-timers.

This is largely down to poor selection choices and misfortune with injuries. We haven't lost the depth, Eddie just utilised it very badly.

4) Number 9 is still so far from being sorted, with none of the credible options trailed.

100% agree. A problem entirely of Eddie's own making.

5) We can't play a lock at 6 and I doubt we ever will.

Agreed. Hopefully this has been conclusively proved.

6) However not having a lock at 6 made more lineout go to crap against Ireland.

Not sure I agree with this. Let's also give the Irish some credit for being very good at disrupting our ball. We also did the same to them, but got on the wrong side of Gardner.

7) The novelty of Ford and Farrell has worn off and its defensive frailties shown.

Agreed on the defensive frailties. Farrell badly needs some tackling lessons. However, if the pack were producing front foot ball, I think they would have been a lot better in attack.

8) Robshaw is what everyone expects him to be, a grafter who looks like he has put some work into his jackalling. His lack of pace has been exposed a couple of times though.

Robshaw is much maligned and he is destined to be forever underrated, but he still managed to put in the most consistently good positions in our pack despite being played out of position.

9) We struggle to get scrum dominance against anyone, but we almost always gain parity.

True, but surely we should be aspiring to dominate some teams?

10) Launchbury should be the first second row on the team sheet.

100% agree.

11) LCD was good around the park, but as many feared fluffed his lineouts.

I'd take the rough with the smooth. His lineouts have improved and I think he brings enough (at least as an impact sub) to play a key role in the last quarter. His throwing is a worry if we're chasing a game, but having him as an option to lay the hammer down in a game we're already ahead in would be great.

Digby wrote:When did LCD fluff his lineouts?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:When did LCD fluff his lineouts?

there was one lost on the French line, didn't appear to be all down to him.

Warrior85 wrote:(This was in reply to Banquo)

Farrells kicking has never been as good as made out but it was still very good, much better than recent form and better than most other EQP 10s.

I agree on Itoje, he still had been full of hard work but it either has lots it's edge or I guess teams have worked a way to nullify him a little bit.

Scrumhead wrote: 13) Eddie's game plan is too rigid and our players seem incapable of thinking on their feet. We need a game plan that allows for situational flexibility and the on-field leadership to change things as required.
14) We need a proper plan B for when Billy/Hughes in unavailable. All of other options at 8 - Simmonds, Mercer, Clifford etc/ are more lightweight, mobile options than heavy carriers.

padprop wrote: 11) LCD was good around the park, but as many feared fluffed his lineouts.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:When did LCD fluff his lineouts?

there was one lost on the French line, didn't appear to be all down to him.

Nope, too much movement and a lift that wasn't completed. The next lineout they set and threw much quicker into a more stable lineout and won the ball. I doubt anyone is going to say LCD is a great thrower, but you couldn't watch this 6N series and say he fluffed his throws unless you ignored the actual rugby

Mellsblue wrote:Hartley never fluffs a lineout, whereas George and LCD are error prone. Farrell never misses a kick at posts whilst Ford always has meltdowns, and round and round we go, down the plug hole of mediocrity.

Rich wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Hartley never fluffs a lineout, whereas George and LCD are error prone. Farrell never misses a kick at posts whilst Ford always has meltdowns, and round and round we go, down the plug hole of mediocrity.

Do you actually watch rugby ?

Hartley is far from 100% consistency at the line out and although LCD misses a couple he is far better than George who displays the accuracy of a 5 year old playing Blind Man's Bluff.

I suggest you watch a recording of yesterday's game - Farrell absolutely DOES miss kicks at goal.

Rich wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Hartley never fluffs a lineout, whereas George and LCD are error prone. Farrell never misses a kick at posts whilst Ford always has meltdowns, and round and round we go, down the plug hole of mediocrity.

Do you actually watch rugby ?

Hartley is far from 100% consistency at the line out and although LCD misses a couple he is far better than George who displays the accuracy of a 5 year old playing Blind Man's Bluff.

I suggest you watch a recording of yesterday's game - Farrell absolutely DOES miss kicksat goal.

Rich wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Hartley never fluffs a lineout, whereas George and LCD are error prone. Farrell never misses a kick at posts whilst Ford always has meltdowns, and round and round we go, down the plug hole of mediocrity.

Do you actually watch rugby ?

Hartley is far from 100% consistency at the line out and although LCD misses a couple he is far better than George who displays the accuracy of a 5 year old playing Blind Man's Bluff.

I suggest you watch a recording of yesterday's game - Farrell absolutely DOES miss kicks at goal.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: there was one lost on the French line, didn't appear to be all down to him.

Nope, too much movement and a lift that wasn't completed. The next lineout they set and threw much quicker into a more stable lineout and won the ball. I doubt anyone is going to say LCD is a great thrower, but you couldn't watch this 6N series and say he fluffed his throws unless you ignored the actual rugby

He was ridiculously lucky to not be called on his dummy throw, after the lineout that went wrong.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:
Nope, too much movement and a lift that wasn't completed. The next lineout they set and threw much quicker into a more stable lineout and won the ball. I doubt anyone is going to say LCD is a great thrower, but you couldn't watch this 6N series and say he fluffed his throws unless you ignored the actual rugby

He was ridiculously lucky to not be called on his dummy throw, after the lineout that went wrong.

I'd noted somewhere in the France thread he might want to look at his action, he might not think it's a dummy but he's daring a ref to think otherwise

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
He was ridiculously lucky to not be called on his dummy throw, after the lineout that went wrong.

I'd noted somewhere in the France thread he might want to look at his action, he might not think it's a dummy but he's daring a ref to think otherwise

His general action is close all the time, but one of the throws was a straight up dummy, not one of the little twitchy jerks he often does.