RugbyRebels

The following players to me looked jaded and off their top form in this tournament either through being selected in wrong position or simply being too sure/complacent of their position in Eddie pecking order:

Daly at fullback

Youngs at scrum half

Billy at No.8

Farrell as a captain able to think on his feet strategically when it’s not going to plan


Any takers for any more? - happy to be strongly disagreed with here

I'll reserve judgement till I've seen this weekend's selections and performances. Last weekend, for example, I thought Slade looked physically sharp but rusty in handling. I suspect a lot of players will just want to get fully integrated back in their club routines. Of course, it could be that the mental hangovers, if any, will have as much to do with the England training regime as weariness from actual playing time.

I’m broadly in agreement on all but Farrell. I’m not his biggest fan and I don’t think he should be captain, but at the same time, a lack of leaders has been a consistent issue and until someone else shows they’re influential enough to take it from him, then I’m OK with him keeping it.

I’d be happy to completely draw a line under the Daly at 15 experiment. It was fairly obvious that it wasn’t going to work early on and the plus points never outweighed his glaring inadequacies. A lack of specialist competition is a concern, but Eddie needs to bite the bullet and give Watson the chance to show he can be better than Daly.

Right now I’d go so far as to say that Daly would struggle to make my 23. If we’re not considering him as a 15, his recent form doesn’t justify him being selected on the wing ahead of May, Nowell or Cokanasiga. If I were picking the side, he’d be competing with Slade for the 23 shirt.

Youngs is a complete no for me. Time to move onwards and upwards please.

Again, I’d have no issue ‘resting’ Billy. He’s been some way from his best for a little while and I’ve been saying for ages that we need to develop a plan B for when he’s unfit, out of form or for when plan A is not working. As a short term option, I’d like to see Wilson back there for the 6 Nations with an eye on developing Dombrandt or Mercer as genuine competition for Billy. I’ve got a lot of love for Simmonds, but it would require compromises elsewhere in the back row to allow him to play as he does for Chiefs which makes him a less attractive option for now. If Hill keeps developing as he is and forces his way in at 6 or Dombrandt’s work rate increases to the extent that he can be considered a proper 6, it might just be viable.

Lets wait and see. There may be a WC hangover, with some players struggling to adjust but we'll need to see them in action before we can make that call.
Of the players mentioned i doubt if any of them are going to be stood down for the 6ns, though i suspect they may not make the summer tour to Japan.
Interesting to note that only Singleton from the WC squad makes it to the Saracens 23 this weekend.
Youngs does start for Tigers.

We have the summer off for most of the WC squad. I think we're unlikely to see the following in Japan...

Mako
Marler
George
Sinckler
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Lawes
Underhill
BillyV
Youngs
Heinz
May
Watson
Daly
Tuilagi
Joseph

Which would make for a very interesting squad.

Obviously Cole goes on a permanent break.

Daly needs to decide his position.....its not fullback....and then nail it as he has gas, skill and elusivness. Wing or OC.

Alun Wyn Jones.

We can see Maro Itoje blows hot and cold, however the Lions will be calling and the celtic hordes enjoyed the sing along white stripes opportunity.

Ive backed Farrell on here loads of times as I think he is a hard lad, talented and can do all the stuff. However. He does block Ford developing into a prime time world calss outside half, and then limits who we can pick in midfield if he stands out one. Time for change. He can fight for a place and possibly improve his foot speed and pace across the ground, and show he is not going to shoulder charge the next target when his blood is up.

For me - weve showed this past season or so that there is a peak performance available from this squad which revolves around the defencsive line speed , tackilng technique, weight of tackle and relentless physical confrontation. The couple of Ireland games, the New Zealand game, its a step change in how weve ever played before. We have to understand how that comes about - because the flip side is the flat, fannying around performance we showed in the final.

You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?

I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.

Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.

He's not right, he's speculating. We might have lost by more

Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.

So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.

That’s actually a promotion for Ford from starting reserve to finishing starter, the most important people in the squad apparently.

Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?

I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.

I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.

I am not going to rise to the bait of accusing you of wanting us to play a devil may care, throw the ball about, backs moves and all double dummy scissors on first phase, out in the open, behind the gain line, so you can nod sagely and explain it to people. You know more about rugby than that. In the same way I am not suggesting the grind fest, set piece domination and kick penalties game which was relatively successful in the 80s and 90's.

In these handfuls of games we've seen we have blown excellent teams off the pitch and not let them play. We need to find out how we can bring that more consistently.

richy678 wrote:

Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?

I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.

I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.

I am not going to rise to the bait of accusing you of wanting us to play a devil may care, throw the ball about, backs moves and all double dummy scissors on first phase, out in the open, behind the gain line, so you can nod sagely and explain it to people. You know more about rugby than that. In the same way I am not suggesting the grind fest, set piece domination and kick penalties game which was relatively successful in the 80s and 90's.

In these handfuls of games we've seen we have blown excellent teams off the pitch and not let them play. We need to find out how we can bring that more consistently.

Maybe we lack the collective nous to recognise when we just have to keep the ball for a period and/or the physical ability to do it. We seem to kick more and less well when we are under pressure instead. The odd part about that is that Saracens and Exeter have the keep-ball bit in their genes. With a large Saracens presence and a Saracens captain why don't the national team do it naturally? It has to be to do with coaching/training presumably.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.

So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.

No, Jones could simply have said that the coaching crew had identified mistakes in selection that won't be repeated. He has refused to be drawn on specifics often enough in the past. Blaming (effectively) Mako and Ford does nobody any good.

In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.

Things could be worse for us couldn't they.

richy678 wrote:

Digby wrote:You want to design a system based on relentless physical confrontation after we just lost a final following two physical games to a team that hadn't just had two physical games? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at options to remove such contest?

I do agree on Farrell not doing enough as a 12. The space to attack in that channel that SA left was just enormous, for some reason they didn't care about a running threat there, which is partly why I wasn't joking in saying Cokanasiga at 12 would have been an interesting if flawed selection at 12 for the final, and even then only in hindsight.

I don't want to design a system. It's already there. The games we've seen against the Irish and NZ were a level of performance I've not seen from England ever - and we're all old buggers on here I believe.

I am not going to rise to the bait of accusing you of wanting us to play a devil may care, throw the ball about, backs moves and all double dummy scissors on first phase, out in the open, behind the gain line, so you can nod sagely and explain it to people. You know more about rugby than that. In the same way I am not suggesting the grind fest, set piece domination and kick penalties game which was relatively successful in the 80s and 90's.

In these handfuls of games we've seen we have blown excellent teams off the pitch and not let them play. We need to find out how we can bring that more consistently.

And that game against NZ came it seems with a significant toll, especially after being run around by Oz. You would be right to think I'm not saying the ball should be simply run or shovelled wide as that would lead to contact, and I'm saying in a tournament of concentrated games you want to avoid contact to keep the players as fresh as possible. Basically the takeaway from this WC is to play as little rugby as SA, just kick the ball away and then look to break up the game with mauls and scrums, which is a vast distance away from saying a side should play relentless rugby as there's obviously a problem backing that up

twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.

Things could be worse for us couldn't they.

It was two Vs. the Kiwis, one Vs. Tonga, and one Vs. PNG.

morepork wrote:

twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.

Things could be worse for us couldn't they.

It was two Vs. the Kiwis, one Vs. Tonga, and one Vs. PNG.

Did you watch them? Is there any explanation for such a series of results beyond all the home teams playing better? Great for the kumals.

PNG at home are scary for anyone, but word is that Wayne Bennett has imposed a strange and stubborn selection policy that is arguably not generating as competitive a team as is probably possible.


Sound familiar?

morepork wrote:

twitchy wrote:In other rugby related news the GB league side got done 4-0 in their tests vs papua new guinea.

Things could be worse for us couldn't they.

It was two Vs. the Kiwis, one Vs. Tonga, and one Vs. PNG.

Ah I see.

Who the feck is Wayne Bennett?

Digby wrote:Who the feck is Wayne Bennett?

Australian RL coach in charge of the RL Lions and is current England coach. He is their Eddie Jones, but taller and less Ewok-like.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:Who the feck is Wayne Bennett?

Australian RL coach in charge of the RL Lions and is current England coach. He is their Eddie Jones, but taller and less Ewok-like.

I don't even know if the Lions would the men's or women's team. Given we normally show true diversity and name the female team after a flower I'd guess men's

Oakboy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones now saying he should have started Marler and reverted to Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade for the final. He's right but why say it? I'm not a fan of Ford but that is an unacceptable kick in the nuts from the head coach.

So if he says he doesn’t know why we lost he’s in the wrong and if he says he got selection wrong he’s in the wrong. Hmmm...anyone would think that Jones will always be in the wrong with some people.

No, Jones could simply have said that the coaching crew had identified mistakes in selection that won't be repeated. He has refused to be drawn on specifics often enough in the past. Blaming (effectively) Mako and Ford does nobody any good.

And you’d buy that without moaning? Yeah right!!!!

More league "news"......