RugbyRebels

Got to be a first choice starting XV, hasnt it?

Depends who is fit.

fivepointer wrote:Got to be a first choice starting XV, hasnt it?

I expect so, yes, but to EPs point, there’s no guarantee we’ll have the opportunity to pick a number of our preferred choices.

I’d pick the best XV we can and then give the fringe players another run out against the Italians.

Hopefully Wilson is fit enough to play as Billy’s going to need some rest.

As close to first choice as possible, but with Wilson at 8.

Which Tyler wrote:As close to first choice as possible, but with Wilson at 8.

Indeed. Anyone who played 80 minutes of both games should be rested as a matter of course, but especially BillyV, who is so crucial to us.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:As close to first choice as possible, but with Wilson at 8.

Indeed. Anyone who played 80 minutes of both games should be rested as a matter of course, but especially BillyV, who is so crucial to us.

Puja

I agree but why play Billy at all against Wales rather than save him for Ireland with the 1st XV? It should have been his only warm-up game, IMO, even if a non-squad 8 had to start the two Wales games.

Agreed. Let’s just hope he comes through unscathed.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:As close to first choice as possible, but with Wilson at 8.

Indeed. Anyone who played 80 minutes of both games should be rested as a matter of course, but especially BillyV, who is so crucial to us.

Puja

I agree but why play Billy at all against Wales rather than save him for Ireland with the 1st XV? It should have been his only warm-up game, IMO, even if a non-squad 8 had to start the two Wales games.

Billy does tend to do better with several games under his belt - he's a slow starter after a break. I don't want him knackered, but on the other hand, I also don't want him undercooked. A rest this week and next and then 60 minutes against Italy should do the job.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Indeed. Anyone who played 80 minutes of both games should be rested as a matter of course, but especially BillyV, who is so crucial to us.

Puja

I agree but why play Billy at all against Wales rather than save him for Ireland with the 1st XV? It should have been his only warm-up game, IMO, even if a non-squad 8 had to start the two Wales games.

Billy does tend to do better with several games under his belt - he's a slow starter after a break. I don't want him knackered, but on the other hand, I also don't want him undercooked. A rest this week and next and then 60 minutes against Italy should do the job.

Puja

Why the hell do we only have one proper number 8, for the love of god.

TheDasher wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I agree but why play Billy at all against Wales rather than save him for Ireland with the 1st XV? It should have been his only warm-up game, IMO, even if a non-squad 8 had to start the two Wales games.

Billy does tend to do better with several games under his belt - he's a slow starter after a break. I don't want him knackered, but on the other hand, I also don't want him undercooked. A rest this week and next and then 60 minutes against Italy should do the job.

Puja

Why the hell do we only have one proper number 8, for the love of god.

Having a backup number 8 who isn't a specialist (but has played there, very well in fact, this season) isn't that strange. I'm more concerned that about half our squad appear to be unfit to play and we've not even started the tournament.

Regarding Lawes - maybe he’s best used as second row come back row impact player rather than a starter?

Regarding lock - He’s not the most powerful tight scrummager and regarding 6 maybe a player with more energy and mobility needs to start there? - where Lawes does come into his own is as a hard yards carrier and big tackler so maybe some sort of Chabalesque role is the best way for England to deploy him?

Interesting article on back row by of all people Barnes: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/back ... -8mhwvgkx2

Does look like we might be re-entering the era of fielding two open sides (edging towards thet Back - Hill gold standard) ?

However not quite sure why Barnes has got it into his head the idea that Ludlum’s not a seven - I can only guess that seeing him in a 6 shirt alongside Curry in the first warm up was too discombobulating for Barnsey?

jngf wrote:Regarding Lawes - maybe he’s best used as second row come back row impact player rather than a starter?

Regarding lock - He’s not the most powerful tight scrummager and regarding 6 maybe a player with more energy and mobility needs to start there? - where Lawes does come into his own is as a hard yards carrier and big tackler so maybe some sort of Chabalesque role is the best way for England to deploy him?

Don't think that's too contentious. Lawes off the bench has I think been one of the most consistent successes of EJ's era (there were other effective bench options that he discarded, but that's another issue) and I'd say 20. Lawes 21. Underhill/Curry alongside Wilson covering 8 is probably the smart move.

The ewok is terrible at using his bench. It should be an integral part of the game plan.

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Puja wrote:
Billy does tend to do better with several games under his belt - he's a slow starter after a break. I don't want him knackered, but on the other hand, I also don't want him undercooked. A rest this week and next and then 60 minutes against Italy should do the job.

Puja

Why the hell do we only have one proper number 8, for the love of god.

Having a backup number 8 who isn't a specialist (but has played there, very well in fact, this season) isn't that strange. I'm more concerned that about half our squad appear to be unfit to play and we've not even started the tournament.

Wilson did play pretty well, yes, but he's a flanker.

Billy is injury-prone and there's a distinct possibility he'll get injured at the WC. We need more than Wilson at number 8 if we have really serious aspirations of winning the thing.

But I take you're point.

TheDasher wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:


Wilson did play pretty well, yes, but he's a flanker.

Billy is injury-prone and there's a distinct possibility he'll get injured at the WC. We need more than Wilson at number 8 if we have really serious aspirations of winning the thing.

But I take you're point.

This is my concern with Wilson playing 8. For me he has similar strengths to Robshaw, namely mobility, sound defence and good speed endurance and workrate (with the added bonus of a having more of a 6 carrying game).

What he isn’t blessed with is either the shear tight carrying power of Billy (few other than front rows are!) nor the explosive pace of say Hughes, Morgan, Clifford or Simmonds. The irony is that if Eddy progresses with the two open sides route (though it’s a moot point how much Underhill is an specialist openside imo ) then Wilson may be in the best position at 8 for him to gain test caps?

TheDasher wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Why the hell do we only have one proper number 8, for the love of god.

Having a backup number 8 who isn't a specialist (but has played there, very well in fact, this season) isn't that strange. I'm more concerned that about half our squad appear to be unfit to play and we've not even started the tournament.

Wilson did play pretty well, yes, but he's a flanker.

Billy is injury-prone and there's a distinct possibility he'll get injured at the WC. We need more than Wilson at number 8 if we have really serious aspirations of winning the thing.

But I take you're point.

Right. But say we go back to Bill and Ben in the same match-day squad- which I was actually a massive fan of, back when neither seemed to have 80 minutes in them- you still hit the same snag if your openside goes down injured after 3 minutes.

As with tight-head/scrum-half, the worry is a short-term injury to a key player meaning you don't want to permanently remove them from the squad. So I agree that another specialist 8 in the squad would be great, but it really feels like we're only worrying right now because 3 of our 5 backrows are somehow injured or deemed a risk.

Swap out Ludlam for Dombrandt and we'd have been able to give Billy a rest this week, or not play Lawes at 6. But we'd probably have had to watch Singleton play 7.

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Having a backup number 8 who isn't a specialist (but has played there, very well in fact, this season) isn't that strange. I'm more concerned that about half our squad appear to be unfit to play and we've not even started the tournament.

Wilson did play pretty well, yes, but he's a flanker.

Billy is injury-prone and there's a distinct possibility he'll get injured at the WC. We need more than Wilson at number 8 if we have really serious aspirations of winning the thing.

But I take you're point.

Right. But say we go back to Bill and Ben in the same match-day squad- which I was actually a massive fan of, back when neither seemed to have 80 minutes in them- you still hit the same snag if your openside goes down injured after 3 minutes.

As with tight-head/scrum-half, the worry is a short-term injury to a key player meaning you don't want to permanently remove them from the squad. So I agree that another specialist 8 in the squad would be great, but it really feels like we're only worrying right now because 3 of our 5 backrows are somehow injured or deemed a risk.

Swap out Ludlam for Dombrandt and we'd have been able to give Billy a rest this week, or not play Lawes at 6. But we'd probably have had to watch Singleton play 7.

Not sure why Dombrandt (who I agree looks to have potential) is an 8 option when one has a proven test 8 of Morgan’s Calibre to call upon?

We rarely agree, but on this I’m totally with you.

Morgan’s face doesn’t fit with Eddie unfortunately.

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Wilson did play pretty well, yes, but he's a flanker.

Billy is injury-prone and there's a distinct possibility he'll get injured at the WC. We need more than Wilson at number 8 if we have really serious aspirations of winning the thing.

But I take you're point.

Right. But say we go back to Bill and Ben in the same match-day squad- which I was actually a massive fan of, back when neither seemed to have 80 minutes in them- you still hit the same snag if your openside goes down injured after 3 minutes.

As with tight-head/scrum-half, the worry is a short-term injury to a key player meaning you don't want to permanently remove them from the squad. So I agree that another specialist 8 in the squad would be great, but it really feels like we're only worrying right now because 3 of our 5 backrows are somehow injured or deemed a risk.

Swap out Ludlam for Dombrandt and we'd have been able to give Billy a rest this week, or not play Lawes at 6. But we'd probably have had to watch Singleton play 7.

Not sure why Dombrandt (who I agree looks to have potential) is an 8 option when one has a proven test 8 of Morgan’s Calibre to call upon?

Swap Morgan's name into the last example then. It doesn't make any difference.

Could Lawes be the answer to your No 8 backup conundrum? He has the attributes I believe.

Does he? In what way?

It’s a no from me.

normanski wrote:Could Lawes be the answer to your No 8 backup conundrum? He has the attributes I believe.

Not a big enough carrier for me, he doesn't break enough tackles with the ball.

The old Lawtoje arguments still bounce around. While Lawes got a lot of stick for the Cardiff match, I don't think too much was justified when only Billy V was there as a first choice back rower against one of the best back rows around. Ludlam is 5th choice and, within the 31, Lawes is 6th choice. So Jones, in his infinite wisdom, selected our only specialist 8 (risking injury) a non-specialist 6 and our 5th choice back rower (who is also only our 3rd choice 7).

Oakboy wrote:The old Lawtoje arguments still bounce around. While Lawes got a lot of stick for the Cardiff match, I don't think too much was justified when only Billy V was there as a first choice back rower against one of the best back rows around. Ludlam is 5th choice and, within the 31, Lawes is 6th choice. So Jones, in his infinite wisdom, selected our only specialist 8 (risking injury) a non-specialist 6 and our 5th choice back rower (who is also only our 3rd choice 7).

I don't think Lawes himself actually got a lot of stick- the pack collectively did for failing at the breakdown. Having him at 6 means the collective have to play differently; that said, he was a bit clumsy handling (quelle surprise) and gave away pens (as he had done the previous week). He's a bloody good impact lock.