RugbyRebels

Mako 6
George 5
Sinckler 4
Itoje 6
iskwie 5
Robshaw 4
Curry 6
Vunipola 4

Youngs 5
Ford 5
May 6
Farrell 6
Slade 5
Brown 4
Daly 4

Farrell 6?

Yeah, if Hughes had been as quiet as BillyV that would have confirmed my prejudices. I hope it's just a case of getting back up to speed.

I'm minded to give everyone a flat 4 or 5.
But May gets a 6.5 for being lively and scoring a cracking try, Billy a 6 for lasting 80 and generally doing OK and Curry a 6 for making 19 tackles (1 missed)
The bench were a mixed bag. Hughes did fine, as did LCD and Williams. Shields showed nothing to get excited about (playing out of position will do that) while the back replacements made zero impact.

padprop wrote:Mako 6
George 5
Sinckler 4
Itoje 6
iskwie 5
Robshaw 4
Curry 6
Vunipola 4

Youngs 5
Ford 5
May 6
Farrell 6
Slade 5
Brown 4
Daly 4

Surprised to see you mark Itoje that high, given your comment during the game. Not sure how Faz gets a 6 if Ford gets a 5. But its pretty irrelevant tbh.

Banquo wrote:

padprop wrote:Mako 6
George 5
Sinckler 4
Itoje 6
iskwie 5
Robshaw 4
Curry 6
Vunipola 4

Youngs 5
Ford 5
May 6
Farrell 6
Slade 5
Brown 4
Daly 4

Surprised to see you mark Itoje that high, given your comment during the game. Not sure how Faz gets a 6 if Ford gets a 5. But its pretty irrelevant tbh.

Had a good final quarter and im not too prideful to not fall on my sword.

6 still isn't a good mark, but there were no glaring mistakes that really got me for farrell, whereas Ford did get boffed around quite a bit.

padprop wrote:

Banquo wrote:

padprop wrote:Mako 6
George 5
Sinckler 4
Itoje 6
iskwie 5
Robshaw 4
Curry 6
Vunipola 4

Youngs 5
Ford 5
May 6
Farrell 6
Slade 5
Brown 4
Daly 4

Surprised to see you mark Itoje that high, given your comment during the game. Not sure how Faz gets a 6 if Ford gets a 5. But its pretty irrelevant tbh.

Had a good final quarter and im not too prideful to not fall on my sword.

6 still isn't a good mark, but there were no glaring mistakes that really got me for farrell, whereas Ford did get boffed around quite a bit.

and created two tries....

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:

Banquo wrote: Surprised to see you mark Itoje that high, given your comment during the game. Not sure how Faz gets a 6 if Ford gets a 5. But its pretty irrelevant tbh.

Had a good final quarter and im not too prideful to not fall on my sword.

6 still isn't a good mark, but there were no glaring mistakes that really got me for farrell, whereas Ford did get boffed around quite a bit.

and created two tries....

I think the scoreline suggests that our issue wasn't scoring tries, and ratings should reflect that.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:
Had a good final quarter and im not too prideful to not fall on my sword.

6 still isn't a good mark, but there were no glaring mistakes that really got me for farrell, whereas Ford did get boffed around quite a bit.

and created two tries....

I think the scoreline suggests that our issue wasn't scoring tries, and ratings should reflect that.

Then why would Farrell score higher than Slade?

I swear in these forums people used to post their own ratings as opposed to just critiquing the first one posted

Renniks wrote:

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: and created two tries....

I think the scoreline suggests that our issue wasn't scoring tries, and ratings should reflect that.

Then why would Farrell score higher than Slade?

He didn't miss a tackle that led directly to a try, he scored a try, didn't get as physically bullied and didn't knock the ball on in one of our most promising attacks

Vunipola 6
George 5
Sinckler 4
Iskwie 5
Itoje 4
Robshaw 5
Curry 7
Vunipola 5
Youngs 5
Ford 6
Brown 5
Farrell 5
Slade 5
May 7 (Would be 6 but that stupid backwards run doesn't count as advantage was on although not sure he knew that...)
Daly 5.5

May was rubbish again, as was Brown. Neither should wear an England shirt. Having one "skill" is not enough at international level.

old-n-slo-2nd-row wrote:May was rubbish again, as was Brown. Neither should wear an England shirt. Having one "skill" is not enough at international level.

How was May 'rubbish'? Scored a great try, set up two others and missed no tackles. He made one bat shit crazy run, but looked decent to me.

padprop wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

padprop wrote:
Had a good final quarter and im not too prideful to not fall on my sword.

6 still isn't a good mark, but there were no glaring mistakes that really got me for farrell, whereas Ford did get boffed around quite a bit.

and created two tries....

I think the scoreline suggests that our issue wasn't scoring tries, and ratings should reflect that.

I fail to see your logic. Change the title of the thread if you want defence marks.

So has anyone got a scooby as to why Isiekwe was "tactically" replaced. I though he'd been going ok, he was one of the more involved Eng players. When I saw Shields come on my immediate thought was yeah Robshaw's still not himself.

Beasties wrote:So has anyone got a scooby as to why Isiekwe was "tactically" replaced. I though he'd been going ok, he was one of the more involved Eng players. When I saw Shields come on my immediate thought was yeah Robshaw's still not himself.

Wondering if they have real-time stats on how long he was taking to get back involved and he was flagging?

Either way, it was frustrating and I felt bad for Shields too

I just assumed it was an HIA. I understood both Burrell - defensive disaster - and Harrison - physically not up to the role Jones wanted - but Isiekwe looked no worse than any others. Very strange decision not withstanding it's ramifications later in the match.

Renniks wrote:

Beasties wrote:So has anyone got a scooby as to why Isiekwe was "tactically" replaced. I though he'd been going ok, he was one of the more involved Eng players. When I saw Shields come on my immediate thought was yeah Robshaw's still not himself.

Wondering if they have real-time stats on how long he was taking to get back involved and he was flagging?

After 25 mins?!?!?!?!?!

Beasties wrote:So has anyone got a scooby as to why Isiekwe was "tactically" replaced. I though he'd been going ok, he was one of the more involved Eng players. When I saw Shields come on my immediate thought was yeah Robshaw's still not himself.

EJ said we needed to change the momentum of the game, and thought an extra back row was the answer.

35.

Don’t think it was a physical thing, mind. Nor do I think it was a reflection on Isiekwe as such.

We had to do something to slow their ball down. Once they got into the game after 20 minutes their ruck speed was insane. Not unreasonable to think Shields might do better there than Isiekwe. Plus, scrum and maul was barely a factor.

Didnt really work. Poor initial selection or genius tactical change? Looks like neither to me.

Mellsblue wrote:Didnt really work. Poor initial selection or genius tactical change? Looks like neither to me.

also ensured that Billy and Robshaw had to do 80. fortunately altitude wasn't a factor.

Mellsblue wrote:Didnt really work. Poor initial selection or genius tactical change? Looks like neither to me.

Hard to say. Between 20th min and half time we conceded 26 points. Second half we concede 13. I thought we did slow their ball down much better after the break, but what that was down to specifically I’m not sure.

If you could pick one Welsh 7 to play in the England team....which one would it be....I look at the way you are trying to play the game and just think any one of Warburton, Tupuric, Jenkins, Davies, Young would massively add to your game.