RugbyRebels

Let's do this properly and have a thread for it. I'd pick:

Marler
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Kruis
Wilson
Curry
BillyV

Youngs (just)
Ford
May
Farrell
Tuilagi
Cokanasiga
Watson

Mako (if fit), LCD, Cole, Lawes, Underhill, Heinz, Joseph, Daly

I really hope we aren't playing in the change kit again, as it is utterly rank.

Puja

1. Marler
2. George
3. Sinkler
4. Itoje
5. Kris
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Wilson

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Cokanasiga
15. Watson

16. Cowan-Dickie, 17. MVunipola, 18. Cole, 19. Lawes, 20. BVunipola
21. Youngs, 22. Farrell, 23. Daly

Billy and Daly have yet to impress in the last 2 months, so they get a kick in the arse (quite apart from that, imagine both Vunipolae coming on together for 25 minutes, with a point to prove - ouch). Coka is hardly secure in his place there, but Daly needs to try earning a shirt again - and offers more from the bench.
All 3 of those I've mentioned here could earn the selves a starting berth against France if they play well - actually, that goes for allmof my bench... except Cole

Agree with most of that Puja, especially on the kit (which looks like a standard training kit). Only changes I'd make to your line up would be to swap Lawes and Kruis around. Would also consider Ludlam on the bench instead of Underhill as I feel he brings more energy in the latter stages, but it's a very tight call and undoubtedly due to my Saints bias. It's a shame there aren't enough flanker berths to accommodate Ludlam, Curry, Underhill and Wilson because they've all been great. Mad to think that not so long ago it was looking like Shields was nailed on for the World Cup in Eddie's mind

Marler
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Kruis
Wilson
Curry
Billy

Youngs (eerrgghh)
Ford
Daly
Farrell
Tuilagi
May
Watson

LCD
Mako (if fit, obvs)
Cole
Lawes
Underhill
Heinz
Joseph
Cockanasiga

Mellsblue wrote:Marler
George
Sinckler
Itoje
Kruis
Wilson
Curry
Billy

Youngs (eerrgghh)
Ford
Daly
Farrell
Tuilagi
May
Watson

LCD
Mako (if fit, obvs)
Cole
Lawes
Underhill
Heinz
Joseph
Cockanasiga

What he said.

Which Tyler wrote:1. Marler
2. George
3. Sinkler
4. Itoje
5. Kris
6. Curry
7. Underhill
8. Wilson

9. Heinz
10. Ford
11. May
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Cokanasiga
15. Watson

16. Cowan-Dickie, 17. MVunipola, 18. Cole, 19. Lawes, 20. BVunipola
21. Youngs, 22. Farrell, 23. Daly

Billy and Daly have yet to impress in the last 2 months, so they get a kick in the arse (quite apart from that, imagine both Vunipolae coming on together for 25 minutes, with a point to prove - ouch). Coka is hardly secure in his place there, but Daly needs to try earning a shirt again - and offers more from the bench.
All 3 of those I've mentioned here could earn the selves a starting berth against France if they play well - actually, that goes for allmof my bench... except Cole

Bold to drop BillyV. I don't think he's been bad, although I agree he's got more in him.

Puja

Marler
LCD
Sinks
Itoje
Kruis
Ludlam
Wilson
Underhill

Youngs
Ford

May
Manu
JJ
Cokka

Watson

Mako?/Genge, George, Cole, Lawes, BillyV, Hienz, Farrell, Nowell/Slade/ or if not fit Daly.

Puja wrote:Bold to drop BillyV. I don't think he's been bad, although I agree he's got more in him.

He's not been bad, just... a little anonymous, unlike Wilson.
Of course, I could still be judging him harshly because I expect more, but... I do feel he could do with a rocket, and hope that that works before we get to the tougher knock-out matches.

I want to seen him angry. I want to see him with a point to prove. I want to see him exploding for 25 minutes, not pacing himself for 80. I want to see the look in his opponents' eyes as they see him stalk out onto the pitch alongside his brother and Courtney

Thread title reminds me of the time that I was convinced of the value of insurance on a hired dinner suit.

Completely on board with Whichs' squad and reasoning, bar wanting to see more of Manu at 13. The extra space seems to make him far more lethal than at 12.

Would also swap Lawes for Launch on the bench for more game time. He had spuds for hands today, sure, but that's not a unique criticism after the first two games.

Danno wrote:Thread title reminds me of the time that I was convinced of the value of insurance on a hired dinner suit.

Completely on board with Whichs' squad and reasoning, bar wanting to see more of Manu at 13. The extra space seems to make him far more lethal than at 12.

Would also swap Lawes for Launch on the bench for more game time. He had spuds for hands today, sure, but that's not a unique criticism after the first two games.

I wouldn't swap out Lawes for love nor money - I'd rate him as the best 19 in world rugby. Bring him on with 20-30 minutes to go and you get concentrated CGS in the loose, as well as a stupid ability in the lineout - he took one against the throw vs Italy without a lifter. He's faster and more dynamic than Launchbury and, if I needed to change a game, I know who I'd prefer. The only reason I'd take him out of the 19 shirt is to put him in the 5.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Bold to drop BillyV. I don't think he's been bad, although I agree he's got more in him.

He's not been bad, just... a little anonymous, unlike Wilson.
Of course, I could still be judging him harshly because I expect more, but... I do feel he could do with a rocket, and hope that that works before we get to the tougher knock-out matches.

I want to seen him angry. I want to see him with a point to prove. I want to see him exploding for 25 minutes, not pacing himself for 80. I want to see the look in his opponents' eyes as they see him stalk out onto the pitch alongside his brother and Courtney

I can't relate what we are seeing from Billy with the insistence on playing him in every warm-up game - allied with many observers' claim 'that he needed to play to be sharp' etc. Now he looks knackered!

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:Thread title reminds me of the time that I was convinced of the value of insurance on a hired dinner suit.

Completely on board with Whichs' squad and reasoning, bar wanting to see more of Manu at 13. The extra space seems to make him far more lethal than at 12.

Would also swap Lawes for Launch on the bench for more game time. He had spuds for hands today, sure, but that's not a unique criticism after the first two games.

I wouldn't swap out Lawes for love nor money - I'd rate him as the best 19 in world rugby. Bring him on with 20-30 minutes to go and you get concentrated CGS in the loose, as well as a stupid ability in the lineout - he took one against the throw vs Italy without a lifter. He's faster and more dynamic than Launchbury and, if I needed to change a game, I know who I'd prefer. The only reason I'd take him out of the 19 shirt is to put him in the 5.

Puja

Argentina don't worry me sufficiently that we need to have the bench of doom to change the last 20. Plus I think we're a small step away from seeing Lawes at 6 anyway and I want another lock-lock available and matchfit in the knockouts.

Oakboy wrote: I can't relate what we are seeing from Billy with the insistence on playing him in every warm-up game - allied with many observers' claim 'that he needed to play to be sharp' etc. Now he looks knackered!

Agreed he looks a bit knackered, but there is now a break until the Argentina match, where I think he'll be raring to go

Danno wrote:

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:Thread title reminds me of the time that I was convinced of the value of insurance on a hired dinner suit.

Completely on board with Whichs' squad and reasoning, bar wanting to see more of Manu at 13. The extra space seems to make him far more lethal than at 12.

Would also swap Lawes for Launch on the bench for more game time. He had spuds for hands today, sure, but that's not a unique criticism after the first two games.

I wouldn't swap out Lawes for love nor money - I'd rate him as the best 19 in world rugby. Bring him on with 20-30 minutes to go and you get concentrated CGS in the loose, as well as a stupid ability in the lineout - he took one against the throw vs Italy without a lifter. He's faster and more dynamic than Launchbury and, if I needed to change a game, I know who I'd prefer. The only reason I'd take him out of the 19 shirt is to put him in the 5.

Puja

Argentina don't worry me sufficiently that we need to have the bench of doom to change the last 20. Plus I think we're a small step away from seeing Lawes at 6 anyway and I want another lock-lock available and matchfit in the knockouts.

Okay, I can bite on that logic. I think I'd still rather Lawes, partly because I want to have our best XXIII out there for the rest of the tournament now, and partly because I want him to be match-fit for France just in case he's needed and he's not had a huge amount of game time.

Puja

I think Eddie’s preference is for out and out physicality at 7 so Underhill may get nod there (he’s starting to show some explosive pace in attack to) - that said Curry and Ludlum look our two flankers who’d look least out of place as erstatz centers in terms of linking and handling.

Also think there’s merit in starting Lawes at 6 should we face boks or France at some stage.

jngf wrote: Also think there’s merit in starting Lawes at 6 should we face boks or France at some stage.

Nope, you're going to have to explain this one to me…

For someone who cares and watches the backrow so much, in what world would going back to Lawes be a step forward

Renniks wrote:

jngf wrote: Also think there’s merit in starting Lawes at 6 should we face boks or France at some stage.

Nope, you're going to have to explain this one to me…

For someone who cares and watches the backrow so much, in what world would going back to Lawes be a step forward

A world where your opposite number wears a green or blue jersey and is at least 6’ 5”

jngf wrote:

Renniks wrote:

jngf wrote: Also think there’s merit in starting Lawes at 6 should we face boks or France at some stage.

Nope, you're going to have to explain this one to me…

For someone who cares and watches the backrow so much, in what world would going back to Lawes be a step forward

A world where your opposite number wears a green or blue jersey and is at least 6’ 5”

I don't get that argument. Yes, Curry is a step down from Lawes as a lineout option. However, he is perfectly viable and a lineout is about movement more than height. Borthwick's got history of getting clean lineout ball from a pack where no-one was over 6'2 against the Boks fielding Etzebeth and Matfield. We might be more under pressure in the lineout and less likely to compete on our ball, but the difference in open play between having Lawes at 6 and having an actual flanker at 6 is night and day.

tl;dr No matter how many times someone says it should work and it'll be worth it for the quality of lineout, it never has worked and it never has been worth it. This has been tried and failed a *lot*.

Puja

"We trained early this morning and Mako and Jack are good and hopefully everyone is available for selection next week," Wisemantel said.

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Renniks wrote:
Nope, you're going to have to explain this one to me…

For someone who cares and watches the backrow so much, in what world would going back to Lawes be a step forward

A world where your opposite number wears a green or blue jersey and is at least 6’ 5”

I don't get that argument. Yes, Curry is a step down from Lawes as a lineout option. However, he is perfectly viable and a lineout is about movement more than height. Borthwick's got history of getting clean lineout ball from a pack where no-one was over 6'2 against the Boks fielding Etzebeth and Matfield. We might be more under pressure in the lineout and less likely to compete on our ball, but the difference in open play between having Lawes at 6 and having an actual flanker at 6 is night and day.

tl;dr No matter how many times someone says it should work and it'll be worth it for the quality of lineout, it never has worked and it never has been worth it. This has been tried and failed a *lot*.

Puja

Not sure I think the open play argument is that clear cut when talking in the context of the 6 role - for instance Lawes imo is a much stronger hard yards ball carrier than Curry.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
A world where your opposite number wears a green or blue jersey and is at least 6’ 5”

I don't get that argument. Yes, Curry is a step down from Lawes as a lineout option. However, he is perfectly viable and a lineout is about movement more than height. Borthwick's got history of getting clean lineout ball from a pack where no-one was over 6'2 against the Boks fielding Etzebeth and Matfield. We might be more under pressure in the lineout and less likely to compete on our ball, but the difference in open play between having Lawes at 6 and having an actual flanker at 6 is night and day.

tl;dr No matter how many times someone says it should work and it'll be worth it for the quality of lineout, it never has worked and it never has been worth it. This has been tried and failed a *lot*.

Puja

Not sure I think the open play argument is that clear cut when talking in the context of the 6 role - for instance Lawes imo is a much stronger hard yards ball carrier than Curry.

Stronger sure, not much stronger. As for ruck work, it's not even close to a competition, and we're generally OK for big carriers.

And that’s the best way to combat SA is it!?

Gone are the days of every back row player needing to be a behemoth, I think you must still watch a lot of 80’s and 90’s rugby jngf

Personally I would never pick Lawes, Itoje, Kruis, Launch or any of our second row options in the back row ever. Skill, Speed and tactical nous over brute force and ignorance every time for me at 6, 7 &8. If a player has both (which many of ours actually do, but you fail to see (Curry, Billy, Wilson) in any amount then all the better of course.

I don't care about any of this except for officially adopting 'bench of doom' as the term for the reserve players, rather than 'finishers'.

Mikey Brown wrote:I don't care about any of this except for officially adopting 'bench of doom' as the term for the reserve players, rather than 'finishers'.

I quite like The Supremes

jngf wrote:I think Eddie’s preference is for out and out physicality at 7 so Underhill may get nod there (he’s starting to show some explosive pace in attack to) - that said Curry and Ludlum look our two flankers who’d look least out of place as erstatz centers in terms of linking and handling.

Also think there’s merit in starting Lawes at 6 should we face boks or France at some stage.

Has Ludlum been linking much?