RugbyRebels

FYI 6= did OK

Marler = 6
Harltey = 7
Cole= 6

Itoje = 9
Kruis = 8

Robshaw = 6 (tough on Robshaw but he's just not a test class player....
Haskell = 7 He certainly puts himself about. But we all know he's on borrowed time at openside
Billy V = 6 Strangely subdued against the Welsh


Youngs = 4 He is an identikit Leicester scrum half - kick the bloody ball away. Made me scream. Clumsy and does mindless things
Ford = 6 Below par again. Totally lost his Mojo....Suffereing from a bad season - may be time to move on at club level because you're going nowhere fast George

Nowell = 7 Surprises me every time I've watched him this season. He's not top drawer but makes almost no mistakes
Farrell = 7 Good performance and 7/7 goal kicks. Should be the No10 going to Paris
Joseph = 7 a quality act
Watson = 8 really good player....come 2017 he will be England's full back for years !

Brown = 7 good shift, no real mistakes, solid but very soon to find his place taken by Watson

Stephen Jones, The Times

9 - Haskell, Youngs, Farrell, Worsley

6/8 - the rest

Youngs wasn't a 9, but he sure as hell wasn't a 4 either. I don't want him in the starting XV, unless the alternative is Care, but he had far too many positive impacts to warrant lower than a 6

Digby wrote:Youngs wasn't a 9, but he sure as hell wasn't a 4 either. I don't want him in the starting XV, unless the alternative is Care, but he had far too many positive impacts to warrant lower than a 6

Agree regards Youngs.

Just wish we could draft in Robson.

p/d wrote:

Digby wrote:Youngs wasn't a 9, but he sure as hell wasn't a 4 either. I don't want him in the starting XV, unless the alternative is Care, but he had far too many positive impacts to warrant lower than a 6

Agree regards Youngs.

Just wish we could draft in Robson.

We could draft in Robson if we had some basic common sense and/or cojones

Digby wrote:Youngs wasn't a 9, but he sure as hell wasn't a 4 either. I don't want him in the starting XV, unless the alternative is Care, but he had far too many positive impacts to warrant lower than a 6

I gave Youngs a 4 because he keep kicking the ball away and not very well either

His mindset is a liability

Rich wrote:

Digby wrote:Youngs wasn't a 9, but he sure as hell wasn't a 4 either. I don't want him in the starting XV, unless the alternative is Care, but he had far too many positive impacts to warrant lower than a 6

I gave Youngs a 4 because he keep kicking the ball away and not very well either

His mindset is a liability

Which one do you think Youngs is?

A 4 is generous no? I lost count of the times he utterly killed all momentum or missed opportunities to move the ball when we were in really threatening positions. He was actually pretty good for the first 3 minutes of each half, maybe there's something to that. I just don't follow this "sniping" thing. It prevents the blitz coming up and a couple of times he managed to move the ball well enough to make use of that. Generally we just crash it up or are left without a scrum-half, so it's not awful but I really don't see what it is adding that makes up for completely negating our entire backline?

I've never ever been this baffled about the continued selection of one particular player and I've recently suffered through Barritt, Goode, Di Rollo, Laidlaw. Every time he leaves the pitch I think "Okay, that's it. Jones has seen enough now to know this guy is simply not up to it."

Mikey Brown wrote:A 4 is generous no? I lost count of the times he utterly killed all momentum or missed opportunities to move the ball when we were in really threatening positions. He was actually pretty good for the first 3 minutes of each half, maybe there's something to that. I just don't follow this "sniping" thing. It prevents the blitz coming up and a couple of times he managed to move the ball well enough to make use of that. Generally we just crash it up or are left without a scrum-half, so it's not awful but I really don't see what it is adding that makes up for completely negating our entire backline?

I've never ever been this baffled about the continued selection of one particular player and I've recently suffered through Barritt, Goode, Di Rollo, Laidlaw. Every time he leaves the pitch I think "Okay, that's it. Jones has seen enough now to know this guy is simply not up to it."

Jones seems to have a blind spot about Youngs. There are several better English SHs at the moment.

Front row - 6.5
Locks - 8
Back row - 7
Half backs - 6
Centres - 6
Back 3 - 7

Bench - 5

Understand the frustration with Youngs, who I wouldnt pick, but I cannot accept he was disastrously bad.

Locks a real position of strength and the collective effort of the back row shouldnt be underestimated. Back 3 all made solid contributions.

Bench didnt deliver what I expected.

As long as he's going to take both Robson and Simpson on tour I'd rather he didn't take Robson away from Wasps with just one game left.

Spiffy wrote: Jones seems to have a blind spot about Youngs. There are several better English SHs at the moment.

I think part of the issue is Simpson being injured and there only being 2 scrum halves in EPS the squad. Also Robson hadn't been playing much due to being backup to Simpson before he got injured, so you couldn't justify his inclusion - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Will be surprised not to see Robson/Simpson in the summer tour - only potential issue going forward is that they both play for the same club.....

fivepointer wrote:Front row - 6.5
Locks - 8
Back row - 7
Half backs - 6
Centres - 6
Back 3 - 7

Bench - 5

Understand the frustration with Youngs, who I wouldnt pick, but I cannot accept he was disastrously bad.

Locks a real position of strength and the collective effort of the back row shouldnt be underestimated. Back 3 all made solid contributions.

Bench didnt deliver what I expected.

Quite a few of us would (and did) find fault with a number of selections originally: Hartley, Robshaw, Haskell, Farrell (at 12) etc. What Jones has done is create a balanced team for the way he wants it to play. That appears to mean that players who we might perceive as adding to the creativity, physicality or whatever actually damage that balance - Clifford, Tuilagi and Daly, perhaps.

I think he will develop his bench tactics to complement the balance in due course but the way things are at present, the less changes, the better.

That said, the one position that stands out glaringly as a problem is SH. I'd say that Youngs merited a 9 based on him playing at near the best that he can. Compare him with other country's SHs and he really only rated 3 or 4. You can't give him marks for being where he ought to be even if he looks prominent. Giving him good marks for straightforward passing is again just part of his basic job. It is hard to be impartial when I don't rate him but I find myself watching each pass and thinking it could be better - usually earlier, often flatter and nearly always more accurate. The first receiver must be used to the service and makes the best of it but that service, even on Youngs's best day, is quite simply poor. The rest of his game matters little when the fundamental part is flawed. He has to go.

Some of Youngs passes to Ford were so high they'd have carried to inside-centre at head height. Then, some were at Ford's bootlaces, which cost us a try.

Pie Man wrote:Some of Youngs passes to Ford were so high they'd have carried to inside-centre at head height. Then, some were at Ford's bootlaces, which cost us a try.

His passing was poor; he was however key to the very narrow game we rightly chose to play, using the blindside so much. However, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to do both!

I was gobsmacked at the consistently good decisions we kept making as a team, especially int he first half.

Youngs was a real mixed bag - his sniping / delayed passes definitely kept the beastly Welsh defence honest & confused. He was really good at some things, but a few split second decisions & poor passes cost us a massive points tally in the first half. Overall a 7 for me

No huge Ford fan but thought he played well on the whole, he was always in trouble for 'that' kick which was the start of the comeback (too close on several before then) I think he suffered from too many big collisions, but defended bloody well. Who kicked it out before that charge down? We should have been well upfield

We totally lost our shape with everyone's pantomime villains Cole Hartley and Robshaw went off

Hartley & Robshaw take a bow gents - after all the stick they get to play like they have all tournament is testament to the fellas & their desire to play for England

Not that it matters but was Liam Williams' offload forward? 1 less try and the game wasn't even close. Well played boys

Youngs poor but as said he controlled the game for the first 40 very well TBF. 6 would of been a fair rating TBH. Youngs thrives at when he has big ball carriers around him were he can snipe or throw a short pass at the last second and England are starting to add more players that can do that other.

Lol at several SH better than Youngs in England.

Like who?
Robson - Fair enough although not much Jones could do considering he only really just come into his own @ Wasps
Care - Debateable whilst certainly a quicker passer than Youngs he doesn't have a kicking game and defence is weaker, His miss tackle cost us a try.
Simpson - Pretty much plays like Youngs anyway and people overexagerate his ability IMO, also has an injury record that would make Croft blush.
Cook - Promising but still raw, cost bath the game pretty much on the weekend. (Although bath been crap anyway)
Chudley - Solid AP 9 but at his age nothing to suggest England IMO.
Harrison - Good 9, but lacks the attacking game in hand to be an international 9 ATM.

Whilst Youngs did cost us a try, ford was still also to blame he should of showed composure and maturity to know not to kick that instead he did what he has done @ Bath a few times this season a panic.

Would I start Youngs no, but if Eddie Jones wants to wear out teams by getting them to play from deep and start defensively Youngs dose that better than Care.

Robson for me is number 1 9 with care and Youngs depending on game plan.

iLovett wrote:
Not that it matters but was Liam Williams' offload forward? 1 less try and the game wasn't even close. Well played boys

I certainly shouted that at the time!

The offload did look forward.

EJ will hopefully look at alternatives for SH in Australia. Robson and Simpson should be in the mix but i'd really like to see Ben Spencer fast tracked.

And the dozen or more good pieces if possession he wasted?

fivepointer wrote:The offload did look forward.

EJ will hopefully look at alternatives for SH in Australia. Robson and Simpson should be in the mix but i'd really like to see Ben Spencer fast tracked.

Forgot Spencer, yep would have him ahead of Simpson ATM.

iLovett wrote:Hartley & Robshaw take a bow gents - after all the stick they get to play like they have all tournament is testament to the fellas & their desire to play for England

Not that it matters but was Liam Williams' offload forward? 1 less try and the game wasn't even close. Well played boys

Agreed on both. Robshaw especially has been superb and the real linchpin upon which our game has been based. While I'd still prefer George over Hartley, he has significantly upped his game this tournament and hasn't been the weakness that I feared.

And yeah, that pass did look significantly forward. All's well that ends well though.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:And the dozen or more good pieces if possession he wasted?

Hyperbole surely - I only saw 3-4 at most and two of those were from asking him to pass from a 2 ball in the line out to a very wide fly-half. Granted, an international scrum-half should be able to make that pass, but since the one we've got can't, should we still be running that move?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:And the dozen or more good pieces if possession he wasted?

Hyperbole surely - I only saw 3-4 at most and two of those were from asking him to pass from a 2 ball in the line out to a very wide fly-half. Granted, an international scrum-half should be able to make that pass, but since the one we've got can't, should we still be running that move?

Puja

...it has occurred to me that Ford/Faz do stand too far away from him, given the quality of his passing. I wonder how much time the coaches spend on this, or indeed if they know how to work out optimum width and depth.

But even 3 or 4 times is 3 or 4 too many.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:And the dozen or more good pieces if possession he wasted?

Hyperbole surely - I only saw 3-4 at most and two of those were from asking him to pass from a 2 ball in the line out to a very wide fly-half. Granted, an international scrum-half should be able to make that pass, but since the one we've got can't, should we still be running that move?

Puja

...it has occurred to me that Ford/Faz do stand too far away from him, given the quality of his passing. I wonder how much time the coaches spend on this, or indeed if they know how to work out optimum width and depth.

But even 3 or 4 times is 3 or 4 too many.

Makes you think, that, when they are used to playing with Cook and Wigglesworth respectively!